Quote:
Originally Posted by
dwashbur
Oh, I see, you're ripping my statement out of context inasmuch as I was only referring to one of your points, and all I said was, I couldn't verify that particular description. I'll thank you not to do that to my words.
I don't think it was taken out of context. It described your idea of hell's punishment as possible but not verified. It was to give you an opportunity to refute my "determinative refutations". However, maybe I did overuse it. I'll avoid that going forward.
Quote:
Not so. Tartarus is one of the many words the NT writers used to try and describe the indescribable
Tartarus was translated as Latin "infernum". It is a very bad translation since it translates a "gloomy place" from mythology as a place of "fiery intensity". I don't know why you say "Not so". It IS so.
Quote:
I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome,
You are quoting Peter which book (2 Peter) only appears in translation around the 4th century.
Quote:
I have my own issues with Jerome and his mistranslations are irrelevant.
I disagree, but that can be another topic.
Quote:
We know what Peter was talking about and your dodge doesn't change that.
Of course we know what Peter was talking about - he says it as "putting them (angels) into gloomy dungeons to await judgment". That is not a description of hell (a place of fiery intensity). It describes Tartarus.
I don't know why you're accusing me of a "dodge". I've described EXACTLY what the situation is. There is no "dodge" here.
This "not so" refers to my claim that all Bible translations into hell are misleading. I stand by that claim and I will be happy to discuss that with you any time. Maybe another suitable topic.
Quote:
I repeat: we know what they were talking about, and no amount of dragging centuries-later theologians will alter that fact.
What you are talking about, DW, is a hell that is a fiery place, but that is NOT what Peter is talking about as I explained above in the clearest terms possible. The 4th century reference is the earliest date of the 2 Peter manuscript.
Quote:
You're not making the case that you think you are.
DW, I have no objection to you saying that but I DO require you to give some evidence of your contention, rather than just declaiming it from on high, so to speak. So far, I have supplied excellent support for every case I am making.
Quote:
fm DW
Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.
fm Athos
This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!
fm DW
I love how you keep trying to change the game. You only pull this out of your bag when you're backed into a corner, and I've already answered it. Try something else.
I have not changed the game, DW, I have CORRECTED the game. You left out the key part which is necessary to examine your statement. The analogy of God and a parent omits the critical aspect of God that the parent cannot possess - God is the Creator.
I'm sorry to say that your tone has developed into one who is losing an argument and resorts to personal attacks like you have done here. I find it very disappointing.
Quote:
fm Athos
This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.
fm DW
Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.
fm Athos
Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?
fm DW
I already have in multiple threads.
I researched all your replies going several pages back in several threads and I can find no instance of your ever answering this even once, much less "many, many times". Would you now repost this specific fallacy or tell me where it can be found?
Quote:
You seem to think if I repeat myself enough times it'll come out the way you want.
No, I don't think that especially since I couldn't find it even once which makes it impossible to "repeat".
Quote:
Read most any good book on philosophy of religion. Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either. Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.
Actually, when you add creation to foreknowledge and the other qualities of God, they are contradictory to free will. However, that's another topic for discussion. Predestination might be q good title. For now, let's stick to the current topic.
Quote:
You're welcome to follow those unfounded assumptions.
I have not made any unfounded assumptions. You're doing it again, making accusations without backing up those accusations.
Quote:
I take the New Testament more seriously than that, as the Word of God, and I really don't care what those who would tear it down want to try and say.
Neither do I care about those who would tear it down. I prefer to discuss where it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated leading to unfortunate false doctrines such as hell. There is a sizable fraction of Christianity who keys on hellfire to describe their faith when the message of Jesus is overwhelmingly about loving God, neighbor, and self - and, strikingly, one's enemy.
Quote:
He (Satan) is presented as a real person in both Testaments so that's good enough for me.
Actually, he's not presented as a real person in either Testament.
In Job, he is hardly presented as the epitome of evil in a story which is not to be taken literally. In the New Testament, Satan is a literary creation used to give evil a sinister persona. If you review the mentions of Satan in the Gospels, his fictional character becomes obvious and has been of such great appeal as a bogeyman that he continues to flourish today in all forms of art and entertainment.
I realize you don't believe any of this and that's ok. We can agree to disagree.
Quote:
It is in fact "your" testimony because you're the one passing on the fallacious arguments.
My arguments have at least been accompanied by reasons and examples. Have yours?
Quote:
Similarity does not imply origin. That's a massive historical fallacy.
What similarity? What "massive historical fallacy"? Please clarify.
Quote:
Who told you the existence of Satan rises or falls on the word "Lucifer"? That doesn't make sense.
Satan and Lucifer are often used interchangeably. Most (some?) Christians identify Satan and Lucifer as the same fallen angel.
