(Branched topic) Need for pseudo-religion/religion causes more crime than lack of?

[Revenant]

This is a huge topic. I don't have time to read the entire thread, and it would take a while to digest all of it and then hash out a coherent response. I did notice that fear as a necessary need to control people was brought up, and I would have to disagree. I mean, first off, most people have a sense of morality, a sense of empathy, and they can make use of these to the extent that life is bearable.

To add is that given some findings in neuroscience and psychology, I feel that most people were built to take pleasure in optimistic empathy. We are social animals.

There are a few people that can't control themselves, and at least some of them may not even have the wiring to be able to control themselves. I mean, for example, if the amygdala (a region in the brain responsible for anticipating pain) is somehow malfunctioning, then a person may have trouble learning from experience, and in translating memory to understanding the negative consequences of an action they feel inclined to take. Fear might be an ineffective tool of control for a person with a malfunctioning amygdala. There may be other instances of fear being ineffective, I don't know.

What psychology and neuroscientific findings suggest, is that happier people are kinder people, and that there are some techniques for increasing one's baseline of happiness. Some of those findings are merely suggestion now, based on findings, and some other explanations have not yet been ruled out, but the evidence leans in favor of certain techniques increasing happiness. To maintain better order, and a happier society, it would make sense to promote such techniques, so people themselves are happier, and that happiness most often expresses itself as increased kindness to others.

Techniques that increased happiness would be a happier control than one based on fear. Fear is often a precursor to anger, and neither fear or anger are great tools for increasing happiness (they may once in a while be necessary to take action to maintain the objective conditions of happiness). In the end, creating a happier society, and a happier society always starts with the individual, and what they feel is of importance to their own happiness. In that context, I don't see fear as having a large place in controlling the masses for a happier and more ordered society.

 

[Chi65]

May I suggest very rich and often most relevant and proved and uptodate sources of informations about many parts of this theme?
(just use the search functions there).

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/

 

[Mars Man]

This is a huge topic.

That is the truth of the matter, indeed, Revenant san. I would suggest, if you are interested (and this is something I would all serious posters in this sub-forum would be willing to do when necessary {no pressure, of course, on you Revenant, such the opportunity to express it here and now}) that it might be good to print out (if possible) the pages in print mode, and read and digest more fully. That is what I always do for the more 'serious' and involved topics.

The proposition put forward by 窶氾寂?堋ｳ窶堙ｱ will be found to have a material number of major flaws. The reason for that was due to the platform from which it had started. It is good to discuss this in detail and point out just how that can be verified, and to what degree. For that taking one thing at a time will be the way to go.

窶氾寂?堋ｳ窶堙ｱ has stated that "Well fear is how people express the unknown." As can be easily shown, fear is an emotion which is stimulated by various stimuli, and the greatest one would be more accurately summed up in the term, survival instinct. And as you have said, fear is both often a precursor to anger, and is a negative emotion.

I would think that if we were to investigate even further, we'd definitely arrive at the conclusion that fear would not be a good way at all to attempt to motivate people to living together.

Then, as has been seen now, the obviously one main reason for proposing the advantage of basing all legal and justice matters (if I have the OP correctly) on a religious belief-system, is because of the pressumed understanding that fear of eternal damnation in hell would suffice to keep everyone obedient to the law.

This is false because the concept of there being an actual and literal hell is false. A group of people knowing that a prescribed entity is false, will have no incentive to adhere to a course of action based on any illusion that such entity is a reality.

I go with you. The fear factor needs to be trashed, and a more productive, and positive-in-outcome method which tend towards creating happiness be worked out.

There are other points about the misgivings of religious belief-systems that I will bring up later here too. For the continued presentation and conclusions on the matter of hell, see the thread Biblical Literature--analysis & critique, interpretations & explanations.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

The clause in bold is where the problem largely came from in the theological expansion after and beyond post first century Christianity. First, however, let's then look at what we have from the exemplars that were handed down-fairly intact, but now wholely.

If one is going by the King James (1611) version, the first occurance of the English word 'hell' will be found at Deut. 32:22 where we will find:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, ...
The Masoretic Text (BHS, based on the Leningrad B19 text) give us the following there (and this is poetry):

ko-esh qakhikha'h bhiapho wa-toqed adh-she'ol tahetokh. . .
(transliteration mine; KJ fairly translates this as well)

At that point, the LXX (Septuaginta) give us the following:

hoti pyr enkekautai ek tu thumou mou, kauthesetai heos haidou kato (which translates basically the same as 'his burning anger will set fire down to the underworld' where in haidou (a form of haides) is the same meaning as the Hebrew sheol
If we look for the first occurance of the Hebrew word 'sheol,' we'll find that at Gen. 37:35, where the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures gives us (Joseph's quote only):
For I shall go down mourning to my son into She'ol
The American Standard Version of 1901 has:
For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning
In the New American Standard (1960) we find:
Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son
The New Revised Standard Verson renders it as:
No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son mourning
And the Today's English Version (Good News Bible-1976 ed.) puts it as:
I will go down to the world of the dead still mourning for my son
Lastly, the King James Version very correctly gives us:
For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning
Further instances that will bear out the understanding in detail and concretely would be for example, to cite a few here:

Gen 42:38; Num 16:30,33; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Sam 22:6; 1 Ki 2:6; Job 7:7:9; 14:13 (and this is Job talking in that narrative); Pslm 6:5; 16:10; Prov 27:20; Ecc 9:10; etc., etc. (the LXX consistently gives us haidou)
There are instances of its being used metaphorically for describing sinners, yet the Hebrew writings make it clear enough that the concept behind sheol is that of death--no longer being alive.

What this and further investigation shows, is that a theological perception based primarily on Augustine's works, had propogated an error which then leaked into translation, not that English translators of old tried to keep a meaning of word assignment based on the original tounges...except maybe Tyndale possibly had tried to, to some extent.

The English word 'hell' is understood to have come from the base' helan' meaning to cover or hide, which back in Wycliffe's days (14th century) would be very close to the Hebrew 'sheol.'

I will deal with the Greek texts later tonight.

This is probably why many Jews (people of the religion, not Hebrew) don't seem to believe in hell. I'd love to cite some examples of descriptions of hell in the bible, but i have not actually had time to read past Genesis. We must also consider the capability of the language, as well. Did they even have a word equivalent to today's meanings? Did English have one back then? Without jumping into UFO theory (i don't believe in extra terrestrials, but this serves as an example), many think that the Tora and the Bible were written in primitive languages where many things were left un-describable. Many people think that Ezekial's wheel was a UFO. This theory is backed up by the idea that if one doesn't have words to describe something, rather than making up new ones they'll use existing ones (Flying Saucer is an example in itself). Maybe in a few years (after i get that book read and trying to read untranslated copies) i'll be able to explain this more. Being a student in America doesn't lend to enough time to get down and dirty with this stuff.

Regarding what translations I use, you can see the English ones above in the underlined italics, but beyond those of the English, I use what is commonly called MT (Masoretic Text) as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttengartensia is, and the LXX (Septuaginta) as the edition by Alfred Rahlfs is, and also for the Christian recensions, I use (and of course have on hand and study) J. J. Gresbach (1806), B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1881), and Novum Testamentum Graece, or NA 27th Ed, by E. Nestle and B. & K. Aland (1998). Of course, these are all original tongue works, and the critical apparatus in the NA 27 is very, very detailed and accurate.

Regarding the story of the resurrection there is much to be said. We could do that here as embedding in order to establish a point in case in the counter argument I am presenting, or, we could start a 'sister thread' to run along side this one, in which to argue those points.

However, to even argue the points that lead to any conclusion on the resurrection matter, we would have to argue previous points, you see...it would be very detailed and long, but I'm fully ready and willing to do that.

Regarding some further points you have made, I again, say that we should take care of one at a time...rushing never leads well founded and validated conclusions. At the moment, we are testing one area of one main belief-system, Christianity. After we have finished looking at this to a substantial degree, we can move on to the next one.

However, we will soon find through careful thought, that if we come to understandings herein which undermine similar points in other religious belief-systems, then we again have shown the others as being non-realities...mere myths as were those of the Greeks, the Incas, and the Hopis of North America.

Well, i can wait. Anyway, i find that undermining hell in Christian understanding would hardly disprove hell in other religions, since your basis seems to be deffinitions of words in a metaphorical text. I don't remember specifics, but i do recall some seemingly metaphores of other metaphores in the bible. If anything, though, that sort of goes against the bible in this argument.

In the Greek recensions, we will find basically two words which are almost consistently rendered 'hell' in the KJV. These two are 'gehenna' and 'hades.'

As would be expected, the document carring the name According to Matthew has the higher number of uses of the word 'gehenna.' This is likely due to its relation to the Gospel of the Hebrews that the Church Fathers wrote of, and is very related to a possible version of some similarity in the Chaldean or Aramaic/Chaldean mixed text.

The name is from that language itself, and is a location just outside the walls of Jerusalem where children were once burned as sacrificies to Molach. Later the Hebrews so hated the place that to show contempt, they used it as a garbage dump--including the bodies of dead animals and criminals who were not buried. A constant fire was kept burning to keep stench from becoming too much.

The word 'hades,' of course, is used in Greek as was too. In the LXX it is used to render 'sheol.' It carries no further need of intended communication than that of 'sheol.' Revelation has the highest single document occurance of this word. I'll back this up tomorrow.

Perhaps it's symbolism (gehenna)? If there is no word for today's meaning of Hell, one would have to use a word one already had. Hell in today's english seems to fit that place and what you described to be their feelings about it. A place where humans burned, a garbage dump, a place to hate, etc...

緑さん has stated that "Well fear is how people express the unknown." As can be easily shown, fear is an emotion which is stimulated by various stimuli, and the greatest one would be more accurately summed up in the term, survival instinct. And as you have said, fear is both often a precursor to anger, and is a negative emotion.

would think that if we were to investigate even further, we'd definitely arrive at the conclusion that fear would not be a good way at all to attempt to motivate people to living together.

Then, as has been seen now, the obviously one main reason for proposing the advantage of basing all legal and justice matters (if I have the OP correctly) on a religious belief-system, is because of the pressumed understanding that fear of eternal damnation in hell would suffice to keep everyone obedient to the law.

If you feel it is a main point of the argument, then you did read incorrectly. Such a thing would surely help, but i'd like to know how any country would threaten to send some one to hell. That would be entertaining. As i've said more than once, the concept of Hell affecting followers of religion is only FYI. In other words, it's just a point that i may throw out there later, but don't really plan to right away. I mentioned it to explain the success of religion. And before one should comment on it's success compared to lack of, we have many years to wait to determine this. The proportion of atheist leaders to christian leaders is uncomparable, so i would like to point that out.

This is false because the concept of there being an actual and literal hell is false. A group of people knowing that a prescribed entity is false, will have no incentive to adhere to a course of action based on any illusion that such entity is a reality.

Do you honestly feel that i'm so naive to suggest a government to say "Do this or you all go to hell"?

I go with you. The fear factor needs to be trashed, and a more productive, and positive-in-outcome method which tend towards creating happiness be worked out.

That assumes that people will naturally do what's good instead of forfilling their own desires first. Otherwise, i fail to see a "positive-in-outcome" method.

 

[Revenant]

That assumes that people will naturally do what's good instead of forfilling their own desires first. Otherwise, i fail to see a "positive-in-outcome" method.

Humans were kind of built by nature to work towards positive-outcome situations via co-operation. Perhaps those primitive men that couldn't co-operate out of self-interest didn't survive long, and their genes faded from existence. I mean, how much can one man armed with a few primitive tools accomplish in obtaining food, and fending against animals and other bands of humans? Not much in comparison to that which a band of humans could accomplish together.

When looking at it, a lot of other animals have specialized tools for survival, such as power, speed, strength, and some fearsome weapons. Humans? They don't have much going for them but larger brains and the ability to play fair games. And of course trust is necessary to getting people to co-operate with you. If people can't trust you, then you are kind of on your own in a very wild wild world.

If you look at the over-all history of humanity, it consists of people playing ever larger games of co-operation for the sake of self-interest. I mean, definitely, there have been a lot of dark spots in history, but we've done well despite all that.

Humans must work towards a positive-outcome for the majority to do well, and most will work towards that out of self-interest.

I'll print some of these threads out when I go to the net cafe next....

 

[Mars Man]

It was nice to hear from you again, 緑さん.

I am still debating this proposition of yours from and with the understanding that you are well enough open to and capable of exploring new matters, and learning new things, and are a person who thinks carefully about whatever debate you may happen to be in.

There is one thing which is very clear here, yet which I sense you are presently trying to down play to some degree. Let me point that out, and tell me if I am wrong.

Before that, however. . . let me suggest, that there is no need to quote whole posts each time. Each of us here surely have well enough serving memories to retain what has been said, or, are careful enough to research the thread and find points. Only a specific quote which may be needed (and which may, at times, be a whole post, it the quoted post had been small) would suffice, or only a part to which you are directly answering.

It is true that you have said the following:

We came to a conclusion, whether there is a God, many gods, or no gods at all, it is still important to base a lifestyle on a religion. Religions set up a code of conduct amoung followers, and back it up with a fear of punishment.(your #1)​

Here, you are introducing your idea (conclusion) as religion relates to it. Part of that is that it is important to base ones lifestyle on a religion, and one reason for that conclusion is because religions (and again, keep in mind, that by using the word as a countable noun, you are talking about a religious belief-system) back up their 'codes of conduct' with fear of punishment.

You then said, in reasoning further on that point, the following:

The law only gives us fear of possible punishment, while a fear of sure punishment more strongly enforces that the code of conduct be followed. ​

Obviously here, you have concluded that normal legal precendence in the 'secular' world political systems is weak in that if one is not caught, tried, and proven guilty so as to recieve punishment, they only have to worry ("fear")of possibly being punished (and of course not punished if not caught). Therefore, logically derived through your entire presentation there, you have in mind a way by which a wrong doer is absolutely always caught, tried, and proven guilty so as to recieve punishment.

You then say:

The idea would be to make it possible for the world to follow the strictest religion, . . .​

This is surely a part of your conclusion, therefore. And then, in connection with that, you have said what you did on page two, post number 37, namely:

Religion has a history of establishing "rules" ... These rules are enforced with a degree of eternal (usually) punishment, which, at least to me, seems a bit more convincing to follow the established rules than a term in jail or getting kicked out of a public office.​

If one were to look at that and think real hard, and add in with it your further expounding on it, it would soon be seen that as worded there, you have stated that in your opinion (which is part of the whole argument you are presenting towards your conclusion) based on what can be known, it is more convincing to believe that statements made by a religious belief-system to the effect that one will be punished by eternal life in hell (as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths--for now) for breaking the code of that particular belief-system, is a true reality.

This is my understanding of a main part of your platform. I am in the process of showing you how it is that that is inaccurate. If I am wrong somewhere in the above, please do let me know.

 

[Mars Man]

I'd love to cite some examples of descriptions of hell in the bible, but i have not actually had time to read past Genesis. We must also consider the capability of the language, as well. Did they even have a word equivalent to today's meanings? Did English have one back then?

I am not going to put you on the spot here, 緑さん, but you have exposed your lack of research here; greatly.

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that it is true that I can help you much in learning about the Bible. If it is true that you have only started, and have not yet finished the book of Genesis--and that likely only a single English translation--then on what grounds, really, do you have to assert so much?

Just for your information, and that only (no bragging) I have read and have diligently and carefully studied the Bible, and then some (meaning non-canonical works), for some 15 years now. I have the original language works (as you should have noticed, if you had been informed) and am not only a member of a scholarly body, but have contacts with and recieve studies from those in the field.

You see, if there had been no word equivalent to the common concept of hell today, then our concept today has no base in the earliest forms of those religious belief-systems. Yet, the religious belief-systems which attempt teach the common concept all strive to pin that concept on the Bible--for otherwise it would have no credintial at all. The same goes for Islam, basically--in that they make appeal to a text(not the Bible, of course, but a text). . . and other religions too.

English was not a language in those days.

Then, I very strongly suggest that you carefully study the previous posts I had made on how the word 'Gehenna' came to be used metaphorically, on 'sheol', and 'hades' AND check each proof text I gave within the immediate context in which it falls. It wasn't the other way around AT ALL !

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Humans were kind of built by nature to work towards positive-outcome situations via co-operation. Perhaps those primitive men that couldn't co-operate out of self-interest didn't survive long, and their genes faded from existence. I mean, how much can one man armed with a few primitive tools accomplish in obtaining food, and fending against animals and other bands of humans? Not much in comparison to that which a band of humans could accomplish together.

If that is so, why are there so many in today's society?

When looking at it, a lot of other animals have specialized tools for survival, such as power, speed, strength, and some fearsome weapons. Humans? They don't have much going for them but larger brains and the ability to play fair games. And of course trust is necessary to getting people to co-operate with you. If people can't trust you, then you are kind of on your own in a very wild wild world.

If this is true, i believe then it is true when they say that the human race is doomed to kill itself. Then you have your hitler who wins false trust.

If you look at the over-all history of humanity, it consists of people playing ever larger games of co-operation for the sake of self-interest. I mean, definitely, there have been a lot of dark spots in history, but we've done well despite all that.

Humans must work towards a positive-outcome for the majority to do well, and most will work towards that out of self-interest.

And when humans stop seeing working together as helping their self interests?

Therefore, logically derived through your entire presentation there, you have in mind a way by which a wrong doer is absolutely always caught, tried, and proven guilty so as to recieve punishment.

Sort of, but you're looking at the wrong spot. Fear of hell is certainly not my point. I feel that secular law is weak in other areas, as well, as it isn't flexible enough to cover almost every issue. Yet, one can pull out the bible and start yelling addresses to verses to explain an argument against abortion or for abortion. The secular has, as far as i've seen, only said "it's the woman's right" or "it's the child's right" when i have yet to see any secular laws supporting either claim.

If one were to look at that and think real hard, and add in with it your further expounding on it, it would soon be seen that as worded there, you have stated that in your opinion (which is part of the whole argument you are presenting towards your conclusion) based on what can be known, it is more convincing to believe that statements made by a religious belief-system to the effect that one will be punished by eternal life in hell (as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths--for now) for breaking the code of that particular belief-system, is a true reality.

As i've said before, it's not a major point in my argument, BUT Hell can be perceived as existant, obviously, since many people believe it today.

This is my understanding of a main part of your platform. I am in the process of showing you how it is that that is inaccurate. If I am wrong somewhere in the above, please do let me know.

Yea, hell isn't one of my main points. It was only proposed so that i may later bring it out. You thought too deeply about it.

I am not going to put you on the spot here, 緑さん, but you have exposed your lack of research here; greatly.

Naturally, i wouldn't exactly say i have all the time in the world to research the various word histories of languages. Especially since i'm typing this very responce while i'm getting dressed to go to my educational institution.

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that it is true that I can help you much in learning about the Bible. If it is true that you have only started, and have not yet finished the book of Genesis--and that likely only a single English translation--then on what grounds, really, do you have to assert so much?

I've heard this one before, actually. It was a debate previously mentioned. I sure hope you will be different from the man who ended up appologizing for making clearly false claims based on a few pseudo-scientists. I try to back things up with as little research as possible to prevent sinking my argument with the weight of a pseudo-scientist working to disprove the bible.

Just for your information, and that only (no bragging) I have read and have diligently and carefully studied the Bible, and then some (meaning non-canonical works), for some 15 years now. I have the original language works (as you should have noticed, if you had been informed) and am not only a member of a scholarly body, but have contacts with and recieve studies from those in the field.

If these are your connections, i strongly suggest that you watch your information. Anti-christian pseudo-scientists love to hide out in this field. Rather than choosing a productive career, many people will chose to study christianity as a career just so they can be respectable enough to pick it to peices with information they pulled out of their rear. Usually found a lost book of the bible in egypt or something and hardly can back up any idea how the religous book got there, even though they are close. Augestine was a nut, it's even said that he thought he was one of the deciples of Jesus Christ. Many people like to use Augestine as cannon...

You see, if there had been no word equivalent to the common concept of hell today, then our concept today has no base in the earliest forms of those religious belief-systems. Yet, the religious belief-systems which attempt teach the common concept all strive to pin that concept on the Bible--for otherwise it would have no credintial at all. The same goes for Islam, basically--in that they make appeal to a text(not the Bible, of course, but a text). . . and other religions too.

The desired meaning would be passed down, but not exactly written. Eventually, a word would be made to equivalize it.

English was not a language in those days.

If so, it'd be really convenient in debates.

Then, I very strongly suggest that you carefully study the previous posts I had made on how the word 'Gehenna' came to be used metaphorically, on 'sheol', and 'hades' AND check each proof text I gave within the immediate context in which it falls. It wasn't the other way around AT ALL !

Now to referance 日本語... In any language, a word can have more than one meaning(かう for example). The meaning depends alot on context. At any one time, one particular meaning or more than one particular meaning (a pun) may display itself. If gehenna was used to describe a place where people were burned, a hated place, and so forth, i find it hard to understand how it cannot adopt this meaning in the bible, but only the meanings of just "hades" and "sheol." It may only have done that, or it may have adopted the meaning of that place in which it would be paralelled(sp?) to our interpretation of Hell. If that is an uncommon meaning, there's no way to be sure it didn't display that 3rd deffinition in the bible since we have little to compare it to that uses that 3rd meaning.

 

[Mars Man]

Now I will put you on the spot. You somehow can't help but seem to think out a matter before words come out of your head.

In your post #54, you asked these two question in contextual connection, making the period of time equivalent for the two states.

Did they even have a word equivalent to today's meanings? Did English have one back then? ​

These two questions together logically require that you are asking if the English language had had a word equivalent to today's common definition of hell at the time that even the first documents which came to be the Torah, or, in the best case, in the early second century (when the final touches were put on the worked entitled According to John).

Against those questions, I then pointed out in my #57 that:

English was not a language in those days.​

Against that, you have posed the rhetorical question:

If so, it'd be really convenient in debates.​

The gest of this rhetorical question is to claim by insinuation that you know that English was, an active language at (during) that time. This shows that you are asserting statements and claims as facts while you have no knowledge about them at all ! In other words, you are exposing your ignorance.

It is a fact, that in the year 500 BCE, English was non-existent. It is a fact that in the year 110 CE, Old English even was not so fully a complete language yet. (around 500 CE is the generally understood 'start' date for that period)

If you are really interested in learning, then I very strongly suggest you lay aside your tendency to speak before research and thinking. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Now I will put you on the spot. You somehow can't help but seem to think out a matter before words come out of your head.

In your post #54, you asked these two question in contextual connection, making the period of time equivalent for the two states.

Did they even have a word equivalent to today's meanings? Did English have one back then?
These two questions together logically require that you are asking if the English language had had a word equivalent to today's common definition of hell at the time that even the first documents which came to be the Torah, or, in the best case, in the early second century (when the final touches were put on the worked entitled According to John).

Against those questions, I then pointed out in my #57 that:

English was not a language in those days.
Against that, you have posed the rhetorical question:

If so, it'd be really convenient in debates.
The gest of this rhetorical question is to claim by insinuation that you know that English was, an active language at (during) that time. This shows that you are asserting statements and claims as facts while you have no knowledge about them at all ! In other words, you are exposing your ignorance.

The question, though not the first, was a referance to the following.

The English word 'hell' is understood to have come from the base' helan' meaning to cover or hide, which back in Wycliffe's days (14th century) would be very close to the Hebrew 'sheol.'

Please do put me on the spot again.

The gest of this rhetorical question....language yet. (around 500 CE is the generally understood 'start' date for that period)

(Note: i did as you asked and left out details only giving enough for you to look back up.)

It is irrelevent. What IS important is that when the bible was translated to English, did it have a word Hell to use that would be roughly equivalent meaning of today's usage? Did Hebrew when the Tora have a word equivalent to our current day word Hell when it was written? Did Greek? If there were existant words that could have been applied appropriately without loosing the pun (as i'd like to call them for now). The phrase, "for lack of better words" comes to mind when you propose this supposed problem.

If you are really interested in learning, then I very strongly suggest you lay aside your tendency to speak before research and thinking. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

It's a unique way of debating from my perspective. It tends to annoy people, as it clearly seems to be doing you. I use my lack of knowledge as a strength to expose pseudo-science. I've noticed people have a tendancy of accepting something because of a name, sometimes just because some one puts their name on it. I have a tendancy of asking what is seldom asked, and in turn it makes one ask themselves the question. Sometimes, it exposes a major flaw in an "accepted theory." As time goes on, i'll become worse. But if you're really interested in exposing lies amoung both religion and non-religion, you should welcome my annoying questions, points of view, and lack of education.

 

[Mars Man]

I apreciate you candor there, 窶氾寂?堋ｳ窶堙ｱ. I can understand the level of learning from which you are now coming, and perhaps will be better able to respond. In the field of biblical literature, I am, perhaps to my disavantage at times, accustomed to carrying on dialog with those who are learned, and thus have habits of not laying out 'ground-work-like' information--it's all already known.


Before I go on, I'd like to inform you that perhaps without your really have developed the connection yet, each point that is relevant to your proposal is equally as important as the entire proposal. The idea of a code is important, therefore a 'tool' for insuring obedience to that code is important. The doctrine of religious belief-systems is important, therefore what makes the doctrine of religious belief-systems is important.

To the degree that these two above elements connect, the commonly held concept (and I'm focusing on the Abrahamic faiths yet) of 'hell' is important. It is important because it is a imaginary, in-the-minds-of-men only tool that is applied through a method of (what boils down to) mind control, in order to control members of the public.

What IS important is that when the bible was translated to English, did it have a word Hell to use that would be roughly equivalent meaning of today's usage?

When the Bible was translated into English, the bible (which is what the 'it' in the above sentence logically means, you know) did not have a word in it, the concept of which, could equate with that concept of a literal location beneath the earth (central of the globe) controlled by one certain spiritual being, in which immaterial, disembodied actual historical persons (conscious and all) burn in a fire of sorts for eternity. This is the truth of the matter.

What you seem to be missing, is that a word is a symbol. Each word has a referent to an object or act or state, abstract or concrete, real or imaginary. What we are talking of in our discussion regarding the present common concept of hell, is the concept. The Jewish religious system of old did not have that concept. The Christian founders of the first century were Jewish for the most part. They did not have that idea, and thus, the resurrection was a theme, as it was with the Saducees--who lost out when they lost the temple to Rome in 70 CE.

Did Hebrew when the Tora [had been written] have a word equivalent to our current day word Hell when it was written? Did Greek?

(corrections mine)

No the writers of the Tanakh (the whole collection of Jewish religious canonical writings) did not have that concept, therefore not that word.

The Greek religious belief-system had that general concept, and had a word for it, namely, 'hades' (as I have said before). The concept was a bit different in some ways, however, because there were two 'hells' (so to speak) one for humans and one for gods or demi-gods. There was no fire, as best I can recall, and the ruler of that place was a god named Hades.

The Christians of the first century wrote either in Aramaic/Hebrew/Chaldean or Greek; mostly in Greek. Because they were writing in Greek, they of course used Greek words mostly (from time to time, very, very far and few inbetween, you will find an Aramaic term, such as 'babba', etc.) but it does not follow that because they used Greek words, they had been admitting to the correctness of the Greek religious belief-system. (which is now very much a dead system)

The Hebrew Christian authors used the Greek language to carry the meanings of the concepts they had in basic Jewish thought. For that reason, the word 'gehenna' likely comes up more than that of 'hades.' As I had shown before, that location was symbolically used to represent total destruction of life and condemnation, period--not that it had been used to represent a concept that had already been in place which equates the present common concept with the word 'hell.'


I would suggest, as a side note, that if you really want to be taken seriously at all, you had better drop your incautiously slinging around of the word 'pseudo;' having admitted to your present level of education. In a friendly manner of a partner in discussion, I am saying this, so don't take it as slighting, but as suggesting a proper degree of humbleness. You most obviously do not have the credentials to more accurately discern what is, or is not, pseudo.

 

[Revenant]

If that is so, why are there so many in today's society?

Because people will always be different. That doesn't mean that different groups of people won't co-operate when co-operation results in a win/win situation. They often do co-operate.

If this is true, i believe then it is true when they say that the human race is doomed to kill itself. Then you have your hitler who wins false trust.

The human race does have a slight possibility of dooming itself, but if it doesn't doom itself, then we're left with most people working towards win/win situations, in which the combined effort of 1+1=3.

Hitler won trust, true, but from a limited number of people (the Germans), and not even all of his target audience was convinced, and some were even opposed.

And when humans stop seeing working together as helping their self interests?

When would the majority of people not be interested in improving their conditions in pursuit of happiness? I don't see that ever happening. And if there's self-interest, then self-interest in an interdependent world requires co-operation to better realize one's hopes. Most people realize on at least an intellectual level that co-operation more often brings about the results they want, and a lot also understand on more than an intellectual level that that is necessary to realize at least some of their hopes.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Before I go on, I'd like to inform you that perhaps without your really have developed the connection yet, each point that is relevant to your proposal is equally as important as the entire proposal. The idea of a code is important, therefore a 'tool' for insuring obedience to that code is important. The doctrine of religious belief-systems is important, therefore what makes the doctrine of religious belief-systems is important.

I didn't mean hell as much of a building block, but as an explanation. True enforcement cannot be done without instant reaction to crimes. The idea is to set up more or less rules for indoctrination. Rules for ideals. Not so much international law par se, but a set of accepted rules of living and making decisions. Since parents no longer can teach right and wrong anymore (due to time, laws prohibiting punishment, etc), perhaps it would be good if the teachers could. To do this, an agreed upon system for atheists must be established, and logically one would have to allow religious people to be taught their system. This is also to help keep the atheists together, when as is, they are quite devided in belief of what's right and wrong.

To the degree that these two above elements connect, the commonly held concept (and I'm focusing on the Abrahamic faiths yet) of 'hell' is important. It is important because it is a imaginary, in-the-minds-of-men only tool that is applied through a method of (what boils down to) mind control, in order to control members of the public.

That assumes that there isn't one in Abrahamic faith. I'm about to propose otherwise.

When the Bible was translated into English, the bible (which is what the 'it' in the above sentence logically means, you know) did not have a word in it, the concept of which, could equate with that concept of a literal location beneath the earth (central of the globe) controlled by one certain spiritual being, in which immaterial, disembodied actual historical persons (conscious and all) burn in a fire of sorts for eternity. This is the truth of the matter.

Controlled? I don't know about that first part, but i also never heard of Satan having command over Hell. Last time i heard, he was in the same fire as everyone else. I DO recall, though, that he has command over Earth. I didn't look in my MacArthur study bible (since it has an index) for all the deffinitions of hell, but i did find an interesting story in Luke that defines the existance of hell...

Luke 16:19 through Luke 16:31. Jesus, according to belief, spoke of possible examples. If Lazarus was speaking, he had to be concious, correct? He was clearly in torment. Quite frankly, i never was overly interested of whether or not a guy would have jabbed me in the end with a pitchfork while i burned or if i was just plain in pain. If you're interested, you go ahead. But, as far as i'm concerned, eternal punishment that induces a despirate need for a drop of water is enough for me to be afaid.

What you seem to be missing, is that a word is a symbol. Each word has a referent to an object or act or state, abstract or concrete, real or imaginary. What we are talking of in our discussion regarding the present common concept of hell, is the concept. The Jewish religious system of old did not have that concept. The Christian founders of the first century were Jewish for the most part. They did not have that idea, and thus, the resurrection was a theme, as it was with the Saducees--who lost out when they lost the temple to Rome in 70 CE.

I know what a word is. thing is, when there is no symbol for a concept, one must be assigned or made to represent that concept. Usually people use a symbol with a related meaning to represent that new concept. Once again, how can you be sure they did not have that concept? Hm... Or do you understand what i mean by Hamadayajakujed?

No the writers of the Tanakh (the whole collection of Jewish religious canonical writings) did not have that concept, therefore not that word.

So, if they didn't have a word for the concept and it was introduced to them, and no one can understand a whole new word, what word would YOU have used to describe it?

The Greek religious belief-system had that general concept, and had a word for it, namely, 'hades' (as I have said before). The concept.... present common concept with the word 'hell.'

Probably why the word wasn't used, or if so, not much. They likely would have used something with a more sedimental value if it's highly important (as Hell would be to them; It also may have been good to have a word that stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the text) to the society (since many of them were Hebrew), and that would have been a word that isn't greek. Possibly something in the "Tanakh" (i thought it was Tora, by the way).

I would suggest, as a side note, that if you really want to be taken seriously at all, you had better drop your incautiously slinging around of the word 'pseudo;' having admitted to your present level of education. In a friendly manner of a partner in discussion, I am saying this, so don't take it as slighting, but as suggesting a proper degree of humbleness. You most obviously do not have the credentials to more accurately discern what is, or is not, pseudo.

I fail to see the humbleness. I cannot think of a better prefix to use, so i use that.

Because people will always be different. That doesn't mean that different groups of people won't co-operate when co-operation results in a win/win situation. They often do co-operate.

Often do, but not always, especially when there is a compelling reason not to. Usually self honor. For instance, many atheists will not even sit beside a christian, even if the christian doesn't speak about christianity in public.

The human race does have a slight possibility of dooming itself, but if it doesn't doom itself, then we're left with most people working towards win/win situations, in which the combined effort of 1+1=3.

Slight? With increasing intolerance around the world, how can one see it only as slight?

Hitler won trust, true, but from a limited number of people (the Germans), and not even all of his target audience was convinced, and some were even opposed.

Fact is, people COULD trust him.

When would the majority of people not be interested in improving their conditions in pursuit of happiness? I don't see that ever happening.

When the hatred is higher in importance than the condition they seek.

And if there's self-interest, then self-interest in an interdependent world requires co-operation to better realize one's hopes. Most people realize on at least an intellectual level that co-operation more often brings about the results they want, and a lot also understand on more than an intellectual level that that is necessary to realize at least some of their hopes.

This may not always remain true. What if some one were to become indepedent? Independancy is stressed upon in education these days, it seems.

 

[Mars Man]

Did you get a chance to look at the sister thread I have opened to help keep this one a little lighter? It explains some more about the biblical understanding.

The didactic story, metaphorically using gehenna that Luke gives us, is not a context from which to make assertions about something which came up after the text had been written. It is a fallacy to use that as a proof text, because that was not the original intent.

They didn't have that concept, so it's a waste of time to hypthesize what word they would have attached to the present concept, actually.

the Tora (or Torah) is the pentateuch (otherwise known as the Mosaic Law). Tanakh, is a combined word from Torah, Nebi'im, and Ketoobim--Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. The listings were basically in order of supposed (by some at that time...and now {others not}) decline of degree of inspiration.

Please do check out the information on that other thread, if you haven't already.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Did you get a chance to look at the sister thread I have opened to help keep this one a little lighter? It explains some more about the biblical understanding.

Not really, since i only read the arguments that I join, since i have a tendancy to not being able to let something go. I only really have time for a few threads here, right now (shown by my lack of time to respond yesterday), so i can't really afford to do so.

The didactic story, metaphorically using gehenna that Luke gives us, is not a context from which to make assertions about something which came up after the text had been written. It is a fallacy to use that as a proof text, because that was not the original intent.

I fail to see your reasoning. It looks like a perfect example to me.

They didn't have that concept, so it's a waste of time to hypthesize what word they would have attached to the present concept, actually.

Ok, so they couldn't have that idea because they didn't have it? Makes sense, but only if they really didn't have that idea. I'm trying to point out that they did, but you seem to be holding your argument together that we accept that they didn't. To me, you're holding that arguement together with itself...

the Tora (or Torah) is the pentateuch (otherwise known as the Mosaic Law). Tanakh, is a combined word from Torah, Nebi'im, and Ketoobim--Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. The listings were basically in order of supposed (by some at that time...and now {others not}) decline of degree of inspiration.

Sounds like a logical decision, assuming that they would be able to actually tell the level of inspiration. Chronology would probably be better, but they can organize their text how they like.

Please do check out the information on that other thread, if you haven't already.

I would, but i don't have the time. Especially because i know i'd end up joining in the debate. I have 2 mid-term reports, a novel comming up, maybe more homework, and plenty of other classes to worry about along with a girlfriend, a more useful japanese post here, and various other duties. All of which take time. If you find that your other post needs to be read to finish this one, lock this one, for i won't have time.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for taking the time to drop by then. It may prove to be a more productive thing to not start topics that you already know you may not be able to seriously consider.

To my following statement:

The didactic story, metaphorically using gehenna that Luke gives us, is not a context from which to make assertions about something which came up after the text had been written. It is a fallacy to use that as a proof text, because that was not the original intent.​

You have responded with:

I fail to see your reasoning. It looks like a perfect example to me.

The point is, with 100% accuracy in the first place, that you were not the person who penned those words, and therefore have no idea whatsoever what the intent to teach was--and to save time, neither do I or anyone else living on the face of the earth today.

That being the absolute truth of that matter, the next best thing is to firstly ascertain the text--that is what a recension is--then after that, the next step would be to verify the context (both overall and immediate). In doing these things in as exhaustive a manner as can be done, it becomes most obvious that the intention of the author in relating that story (and whether Yeshua had actually used such a teaching or not is totally irrelevant) is to teach the value of being humble. That parable is not a description of a concept which those religious leaders didn't hold to.

That, then, leads to the next statement of mine:

They didn't have that concept, so it's a waste of time to hypthesize what word they would have attached to the present concept, actually.​

You have countered with:

Ok, so they couldn't have that idea because they didn't have it? Makes sense, but only if they really didn't have that idea. I'm trying to point out that they did, but you seem to be holding your argument together that we accept that they didn't. To me, you're holding that arguement together with itself...

The reason you are trying to point out that they did, is because you have not carefully studied anywhere nearly enough about the texts to be able to grasp beyond what you have been indoctrinated with by those who also have not done so, or who rejected the better understanding due to prior pressumptions of a (post textual) religious belief-system nature, that clear understanding.

If they had had that idea, it would be clear in the texts, from the beginning. In that it is not, it is clear that they did not have that concept. To be able to show beyond a doubt that the writers of the texts did have that concept, you see, you will have to show that they did through the texts they have left--minus some scribal injections and spurious lines.

Anyway, if you do not have the time that IS needed to do this properly, maybe it might be best to just let it rest.

Thanks for your time and the discussion (unless you'd like to do it seriously)
MM


Sounds like a logical decision, assuming that they would be able to actually tell the level of inspiration. Chronology would probably be better, but they can organize their text how they like.
I would, but i don't have the time. Especially because i know i'd end up joining in the debate. I have 2 mid-term reports, a novel comming up, maybe more homework, and plenty of other classes to worry about along with a girlfriend, a more useful japanese post here, and various other duties. All of which take time. If you find that your other post needs to be read to finish this one, lock this one, for i won't have time.[/QUOTE]

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Thanks for taking the time to drop by then. It may prove to be a more productive thing to not start topics that you already know you may not be able to seriously consider.

Some things come unexpectedly, including your resistance. You are truely more unique in ideas that i had originally anticipated.

The point is, with 100% accuracy in the first place, that you were not the person who penned those words, and therefore have no idea whatsoever what the intent to teach was--and to save time, neither do I or anyone else living on the face of the earth today.

Exactly my point. It MAY HAVE had that meaning. It may not have. Until we know for sure where the meaning came from, we can only assume that society is right to begin with, rather than arguing with society for the sake of arguing.

That being the absolute truth of that matter, the next best thing is to firstly ascertain the text--that is what a recension is--then after that, the next step would be to verify the context (both overall and immediate). In doing these things in as exhaustive a manner as can be done, it becomes most obvious that the intention of the author in relating that story (and whether Yeshua had actually used such a teaching or not is totally irrelevant) is to teach the value of being humble. That parable is not a description of a concept which those religious leaders didn't hold to.

That's right. It wasn't there to describe our current interpretation. In fact, the deffinition of hell given there seems to be used in a matter that expects that the establishment of the deffinition of hell was to already be understood. In other words, i used that as an example in attempt to show that they very well may have had that idea. I believe that the description of Hell, in there, was to put emphasis on what happened if one was not to humble themselves.

The reason you are trying to point out that they did, is because you have not carefully studied anywhere nearly enough about the texts to be able to grasp beyond what you have been indoctrinated with by those who also have not done so, or who rejected the better understanding due to prior pressumptions of a (post textual) religious belief-system nature, that clear understanding.

And who's to say that you're failure to follow my text isn't due to indoctrination as well? Indoctrination comes at all levels, though it is higher in higher education. These days, education is mostly indoctrination, but that's a topic for another post, one that i won't have time for.

If they had had that idea, it would be clear in the texts, from the beginning. In that it is not, it is clear that they did not have that concept. To be able to show beyond a doubt that the writers of the texts did have that concept, you see, you will have to show that they did through the texts they have left--minus some scribal injections and spurious lines.

Not if the deffinition was expected to be understood without it being written. Why define a word you expect everyone to already know?

Anyway, if you do not have the time that IS needed to do this properly, maybe it might be best to just let it rest.

Perhaps, my time lately is getting cut shorter and shorter. Maybe a few more closing points and then leaving it die. The proposition which i originally made would not be capable of being introduced by a peon like me. Not important enough, so perhaps it would be better to let the topic die...