Freethought & Rationalism Archive

knotted paragon · 02-14-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I will go with my response in msg #1597.

I have no problem with a person rejecting the Bible in favor of the Koran or some other belief.

Not good enough rhutchin. Whether or not you "have a problem" with something is not at issue. Repeatedly in this thread you have made this claim:

Quote:

Yes, in fits of passion, people have rejected the Bible. Yet to be offered is a rational basis for that rejection.

You have rejected the Koran, an ancient text, and claim to have done so rationally. Whenever someone points out the double standard, you claim to be unable to see it:

Quote:

Again, I missed the double standard. Can you explain specifically what you think is the double standard?

So, once again:

Why can you reject the Koran rationally, and not allow that others have rejected the bible in the same manner?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-14-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If you want to speculate that God is other than that which the Bible says, then you need to provide the empirical data to support your hypothesis. This is what you are not doing (and cannot do, as far as I can tell).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Rather, if you wish to speculate that God is who the Bible says he is, you need to provide the empirical data to support your hypothesis. You haven’t done that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible contains the empirical data.

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] Not about the nature of God. Empirical data deals with observation. A web definition for the word "empirical" is "relying upon or deriving from observation or experiment." One can observe good deeds, but not the motives for doing them. If God is evil and deceptive, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the uncaused first cause is good, there is no evidence that the God of the Bible is the uncaused first cause.

Why can't God be amoral? If he is, that would explain his erratic, inconsistent behavior. An amoral God would not necessarily be interested in sending anyone to heaven. If you are interested in pursuing this issue further, you can go to the GRD forum and participate in my thread that is titled 'Why can't God be amoral?'

knotted paragon · 02-14-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I'll go with the Bible on this.

Matthew 25
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:...
46 “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�?

In his zeal to explain away eternal torment, Diogenes seems to have concluded that it was best for him to ignore this passage.

Perhaps you were hasty and didn't notice DtC's explanation for that passage:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The words translated as "eternal punishment" are kolasin aionion in Greek. I already talked about aionios above. It doesn't mean eternal. Kolasin has a figurative meaning of "correction" or "penalty," but literally, it means to "cut-off" or "prune." So to be "pruned" or "cut off" is just another way to say destroyed or annihilated. Kolasin does not carry a connotation of active, ongoing punushment or torment.

The bible is not threatening you with eternal torment rhutchin. Surely one cannot make a rational decision to accept or reject a superstition or mythology without first learning to read its ancient text in the language it was written in. According to the wager, the only rational choice for you at this time is to say hello to Allah and his prophet.

rhutchin · 02-14-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
I'll go with the Bible on this.

Matthew 25
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:...
46 “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�?

In his zeal to explain away eternal torment, Diogenes seems to have concluded that it was best for him to ignore this passage.

knotted paragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The words translated as "eternal punishment" are kolasin aionion in Greek. I already talked about aionios above. It doesn't mean eternal. Kolasin has a figurative meaning of "correction" or "penalty," but literally, it means to "cut-off" or "prune." So to be "pruned" or "cut off" is just another way to say destroyed or annihilated. Kolasin does not carry a connotation of active, ongoing punushment or torment.

DtC's explanation for that passage: The bible is not threatening you with eternal torment rhutchin. Surely one cannot make a rational decision to accept or reject a superstition or mythology without first learning to read its ancient text in the language it was written in. According to the wager, the only rational choice for you at this time is to say hello to Allah and his prophet.

Interesting. So, has Diogenes the Cynic been honest in his research?

In this verse, we have reference to--
1. KOLASIN AIWNION (KOLASIN eternal)
2. ZWHN AIWNION (life eternal)

There seems to be no argument about the meaning of AIWNION. It does mean eternal and in each case it would impart the same meaning to each word, the KOLASIN and the ZWHN are each AIWNION. ZWHN means life and ZWHN AIWNION means life eternal or life that never ends. By contrast, KOLASIN AIWNION means KOLASIN eternal or KOLASIN that never ends.

Since the grammer is direct and takes each word in the same direction, how does Diogenes explain this? Diogeneses accomplishes nothing by arguing that KOLASIN does not carry a connotation of active, ongoing punushment or torment (Why should it have to?). He must argue that AIWNION does not convey the same meaning to KOLASIN as it does to ZWHN. So copy Diogenes' complete explanation of the verse, so that everyone can see how he explains the use of AIWNION with each of the words, KOLASIN and ZWHN.

Then, we can proceed with the discussion.

rhutchin · 02-14-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
The Bible contains the empirical data.

Johnny Skeptic
Not about the nature of God. Empirical data deals with observation. A web definition for the word "empirical" is "relying upon or deriving from observation or experiment." One can observe good deeds, but not the motives for doing them. If God is evil and deceptive, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the uncaused first cause is good, there is no evidence that the God of the Bible is the uncaused first cause.

Why can't God be amoral? If he is, that would explain his erratic, inconsistent behavior. An amoral God would not necessarily be interested in sending anyone to heaven. If you are interested in pursuing this issue further, you can go to the GRD forum and participate in my thread that is titled 'Why can't God be amoral?'

OK. Do you take into account all the relevant verses (or at least a representative sample), both those which support your position and those that do not? If, Yes, then it would be worthwhile to look at your argument. If not, why waste time with an argument based on cherry picking verses?

knotted paragon · 02-14-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So copy Diogenes' complete explanation of the verse, so that everyone can see how he explains the use of AIWNION with each of the words, KOLASIN and ZWHN.

Then, we can proceed with the discussion.

I shouldn't have to do your homework for you when your eternal soul is at stake rhutchin. Here are the applicable quotes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The word is aionios, which is an adjectival form of the noun, aion, which means "age" in the sense of an indeterminate (but finite) amount of time. It was use much the same way as "age" or "era" is used in English. It mean a lifetime (sometimes a person's life was called his "aion") or it could be specific period (like the "age of Alexander").

aionios is an adjectival derivative which does not translate gracefully in English. It could most literally be rendered as something like "age-y" as in an "age-y amount of time." It could be a long time but it doesn't mean eternal or unending. "Enduring," and "age-lasting" are typical examples of how it's translated.

Harumi asked DtC about zoen aionion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harumi

Is there a different word for eternal life then? I'm curious, because it would be interesting if life for believers isn't as eternal as they thought it would be.

Quote:

DtC answers
No, it's the same word. zoen aionion, "enduring life." Interesting point.

You are only pushing yourself further towards Allah and his prophet rhutchin. This is how the passage is rendered in Young's Literal Translation:

46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Chris Weimer · 02-14-2006, 07:40 PM

Here's a great study on αιων - αιωνιος. However, I do want to mention that even though αιωνιος literally denotes a period of time unspecified but limited, it was often used to mean "eternal". Actually, oddly enough, eternal literally does not mean "infinite" but just like αιωνιος meant of an age - aeternus - age.

knotted paragon · 02-14-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Here's a great study on αιων - αιωνιος.

Excellent link - bookmarked. Thanks Chris.

Chris Weimer · 02-14-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

Excellent link - bookmarked. Thanks Chris.

�*�만�?요.

Grrr.... Can you read that?

knotted paragon · 02-14-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

쪄만�?요.

Grrr.... Can you read that?

LOL, of course (wife's Korean) -- "You're Welcome." I can read it all, but rarely know wtf it means...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2006, 07:40 PM	#1617
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Here's a great study on αιων - αιωνιος. However, I do want to mention that even though αιωνιος literally denotes a period of time unspecified but limited, it was often used to mean "eternal". Actually, oddly enough, eternal literally does not mean "infinite" but just like αιωνιος meant of an age - aeternus - age.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.