Cross Examiner

Jinto, Family Man, CX, et al.,

I intend to eventually respond to the original thread between you (Jinto) and I. As you readily admit at the end of your last response in that thread:
"Phew... that was a long post."
there's much to do on my part...I have a lot to deal with and not all of it is worth responding to (IMO). I am considering doing there what I do when grossly outnumbered or when there is fallacy after fallacy...I'll make a demonstration out of one of your points and treat that as indicative of the paragraph, of the entire post or even the entire thread (if particularly egregious), and move on since I can reasonably expect certain things from he who would wish to discuss the important issues.

And when I respond, if I respond at all, it may not be according to your timetable, Jinto. You'll kindly observe that the GuF (gang-up factor) is in full effect at iidb.org and I am forced to respond to only so many things (and not all quips are worth my time), since I am a being with a finite amount of time and patience. Additionally, I have a life. See near the bottom? Among other things, I'm expecting my firstborn son any day now...priorities. Lastly, the hospitality here is noticeably lacking lately. You yourself, Jinto, call me "Coward" for not responding to your other long, long, long response yet. A very hasty judgment and an ad hominem impropriety to boot, found all too common now, here.

First, to Family Man and/or CX:
CX writes:
"Not to mention that the NT was composed in Greek so the figurativeness or not of Aramaic is irrelevant."

And Family Man happily concurs:
"First, as CX points out, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. I don't think you know what you're talking about."

all of which was in response to my prior statement:
"...which was Jinto's main point--fallaciously using the traditional Aramaic symbols (e.g. fire) for the judgment of God as literal English elements."

I will kindly remind you all now that the NT was written in "shopping-list" Greek but: Jesus. Spoke. In. Aramaic. His words on hell and such were translated (in the NT) into the Greek language/culture/mindset for the benefit of the Hellenistic world (read: audience). Take the Gospel of Mark as an example...

So, Family Man, CX and others, with the new understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic, read this again:

"...which was Jinto's main point--fallaciously using the traditional Aramaic symbols (e.g. fire) for the judgment of God as literal English elements."

Who spoke Aramaic? Jesus. Who used traditional Aramaic symbols to describe hell to his disciples and to those who listened to his teachings? Jesus. Who translated Jesus' words into Greek? The Gospel authors. Makes our "controversial" quotation above more understandable now eh? Lacking time and inclination to address each fallacy, and there are many I see, I allow this one example, for expediency's sake, to be case-in-point between you and I, on this thread, Family Man and CX. I wish I could respond to it all but time does not permit. Perhaps we'll meet again? Moving right along to Jinto.

Jinto wrote to me:
"Fallaciously? I'm not the one who cries out "It's figurative" and then proceed to completely ignore what the text actually says. What you're doing is analogous to taking "fish tremble when they hear my name" and "interpreting" it as "fish are in awe of you." Which is bullshit."

which was also in response to my full statement:
"No, that is my point. Your fisherman clearly does not make fish "tremble" upon "hearing" his name. Neither do I understand hell being physical torture, which was Jinto's main point--fallaciously using the traditional Aramaic symbols (e.g. fire) for the judgment of God as literal English elements. What is hell? Irrespective of the symbols used to paint a picture about it, it is clearly an utter separation of the individual from God, goodness, and others. Is it bad? Yes. Is it a cosmic torture chamber? No. Comprenez-ca?"

I wish to contend a technical point, Jinto, which demonstrates a lack of care, on your part, when representing my arguments:

Jinto says to me:
"What you're doing is analogous to taking "fish tremble when they hear my name" and "interpreting" it as "fish are in awe of you."

No, I do not say "fish are in awe of" me, check again. And it matters to get this technical point right because it is part of the crux of my argument that contends that figurative language does communicate a message but that each operator/designation etc. need not be taken literally for the underlying message to be clear as crystal. I refer, again, to the article I posted in response to Secular Pinoy's inference that hell is a torture chamber; the article exemplifying contrariwise, which I reiterate now since reinventing the wheel is a chore that I don’t have time for. You have Internet access? You have your vision? You can read a well-thought out discourse on hell from studied scholars if you really want to explore the issue, rather than hanging on to your current notions for convenience’ sake. You are responsible for that much I suspect, especially if the inhumanity of hell or another such issue is barring you from further exploring the claims of Christ (IMO).

So, Jinto, in addition to your use of excessive, devisive and inflammatory language, I add sloppiness. I should be able to expect you, and others, to demonstrate understanding and to represent my arguments to those who would read them, with attention to the detail I put forth.

Jinto says to me:
"And because of this fear, you're never going to stick around for more than five seconds in a thread once you know that you've been beaten.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong."

You may want to hedge your bet.

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

I responded to your inquiry regarding YHWH's demand for the of women and children.

FYI.

--J.D.

Cross Examiner

I hope everyone caught the moral of the story above.

If you, the skeptic, are going to base part or all of your rejection and/or unbelief/disbelief in/of God due to the "Biblical" notion that God/YHWH is an evil cosmic torturer who really created a Dante Alighieri/Jack Chick-esque hell, which you've derived from a 21st century post-modern American-English conceptualization of a dawn of A.D./C.E. Greek translation of words originally spoken in the ancient Aramaic tongue (Northern Galilean dialect)...then you better make darn sure you're on the spot in your exegesis...or you could end up rejecting/disbelieving something else entirely for simple lack of follow-up. And you might be held responsible for this at some point, in fact, I suspect as much. Due diligence.

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

So it is more like Heinlein's where you cannot tell the difference from Texas?

--J.D.

Demigawd

Thanks for giving us yet another variant of Pascal's Wager.

Jinto

In other words, you consistently ignore the parts of my post that I specifically ASKED you to respond to while trying to bog me down in minor details. Let's just get that straight.

Neither do I respond according to YOUR timetable, but I would like to know why it is that you have found time to reply consistently to every thread EXCEPT mine. If the post is really too long for you to adress the whole thing, then perhaps you could at least pick up on the issues that I specifically asked you to respons to and that you have ignored for two posts running.

In other words, you're making excuses. If you don't have time to make posts in multiple threads, then do not make posts in multiple threads. If you're actually swamped, then respond to the points I asked you to get to and in the future learn to manage your time better. But don't ignore the thread completely and expect me to believe that you are doing anything other than ignoring the thread completely.

Hey, if you can't stand the logic, get off of Vulcan. And I call it as I see it... I have personally seen theists who just ignore a thread for several days and hope that I just forget about it. I know people use this strategy, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

And you should also understand that "figurative language" does not equal "means anything I want it to." People understand that words have meaning, and yet you think that the underlying meaning can be inferred by twisting the words beyond all recognition and avoiding the implications thereof. That's not exegenesis, that's denying the evidence.

Plus, you don't understand the arguments used. He provides a thoroughly inadequate defense of the viewpoint that hell is not a physical torture chamber. He relies heavily on arguments from authority and displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts involved. Some of his more laughable arguments are where he misinterprets "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city" to mean "hell is tolerable," (he's getting it backwards) and where he argues that the fact that they did not use the Greek word "pachos" is evidence that they were not experiencing physical pain (pachos, and it's derivative pathos, are used as indicators of mental anguish. The fact that it was not used is evidence that the pain was PHYSICAL, not mental.) In other words, a complete moron. A one-minute synopsis would have been far more convincing.

Read it. Was convinced only of the fact that not only is this guy a moron, but the fact that you are relying on him suggests that you share his lack of understanding.

You put forth attention to detail? That's strange... after all, it seems that you've been ignoring details the whole time just to make things fit into your preconcieved notions. Like that little detail about actually reading things you post before using them as evidence. Or the detail about the fact that "fish are in awe of me" was an analogy to what you do with bible verses and not a repeat of your statement regarding your interpretation of "fish tremble when they hear my name." Even though I specifically stated that in my post.

Fortunately I'm not stupid enough to bet on someone not responding to a challenge when the purpose of the challenge was to get them to respond. Imagine if I spent my life betting on me losing... I'd be very poor right now.

Cross Examiner

Jinto,

You keep doing that! Respectfully, it's exegesis not exegenesis. Genesis is a book. Exegesis is the "critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text", or a methodology/set of criteria for analyzing books like Genesis. Using the established criteria for textual analysis and historical analysis, one can make better sense out of complicated text.

Now, I was writing your patiently-awaited response to the other thread when I was e-mailed by iidb that you responded to me again, here, now. I read your language and quickly caught your intent. As a result of your latest communique, I've decided not to respond to you further, anywhere, at least until the lack of respect and civility you demonstrate improves (see below), as I and others have shown to you. No one is required, here, to deal with hostility. There are still some here who do not need to resort to name-calling or trash-talking. Adieu.

Regards,
BGic

"Out of the heart, the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45)." In this case, it's from the mind to the keyboard.

Some very telling words of Jinto:
"...Which is bullshit."
"Coward."
'If you have any real courage, BGiC..."
"Becuase you're a coward"

Family Man

BGIC --

It. Doesn't. Matter. If. Jesus. Spoke. Aramaic. Or. Was. Speaking. Figuratively.

Figurative speech has meaning. If Jesus was describing hell as a place of everlasting fire and torment, even if figuratively, he is not describing a place of mere separation. He is describing a physically painful place to spend eternity.

In short, claiming someone is speaking figuratively doesn't allow to you reinterpret willy-nilly to fit your desired notion. It simply doesn't work that way.

Anytime you wish you address the point, feel free. So far, all you've done is to go off on tangents.

Family Man

As an aside, not everything on that list was from Jesus. Some were from the OT, some from Revelations. The idea of hell as a torture chamber hardly started or ended with the verses from Matthew.

JaeIsGod

*Snuff*

I smell Pascal...