A short essay for the Brit who thinks "torture" is a synonym for "punishment"

treeplanter

Well-known member
Well, once you've heard the gospel of Jesus, and the law of God, yes, we are held accountable.
You, undoubtedly, have heard, at some point, that Allah is the One True God

If, by chance, Allah, and not YHVH/Jesus, does turn out to be the One True God - is it fair of Allah to hold you accountable for not being a Muslim simply by virtue of you having heard it said that Allah is supreme?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You, undoubtedly, have heard, at some point, that Allah is the One True God

If, by chance, Allah, and not YHVH/Jesus, does turn out to be the One True God - is it fair of Allah to hold you accountable for not being a Muslim simply by virtue of you having heard it said that Allah is supreme?

If anyone studies the Bible and the Koran and concludes that Jesus and Allah are the same person, he or she would have to be quite stupid. But of course Christ did for the stupid too.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You, undoubtedly, have heard, at some point, that Allah is the One True God

If, by chance, Allah, and not YHVH/Jesus, does turn out to be the One True God - is it fair of Allah to hold you accountable for not being a Muslim simply by virtue of you having heard it said that Allah is supreme?
By all means please provide verifiable evidence that I can actually corroborate.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
By all means please provide verifiable evidence that I can actually corroborate.
Verifiable evidence that you have heard the truth about Allah being the One True God?
Alright, I'll put it in writing for you
That way, everyone on CARM can corroborate that you have heard the truth

HEY, STEVE, ALLAH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD

There!
Done!!

You have now heard the truth
Consider yourself informed

As of this moment, Allah will hold you every bit as accountable for not being a Muslim as YHVH holds Muslims for not being Christian
And this, according to you, is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE because all it takes to accrue accountability, according to you, is having been told
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And if God can create human beings from scratch then He can sure as hell benefit them without harming them in the process

Depends on what you mean by "harm." Stuff that feels harmful when experienced can be seen as beneficial in retrospect. Was I harmed by the spanking my Mom gave me at age 7 when she found out I cheated my younger brother when playing Uncle Wiggly? It felt like it at the time, but today I no longer consider that spanking to have been harmful.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
torture
noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

Wow, so this is simply a matter of under no circumstances whatsoever will you admit that kolasis is not toompanidzo, and toompanidzo is not kolasis.
As I have repeatedly said, they are not the same thing (whether in English or Greek), but they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to want to pretend.

Actually, you are. You have continued to impose toompanidzo into the discussion, stating that toompanidzo is an aspect of kolasis and it cannot be any other way.
It is a fact that punishment can also be torture. Using Greek words does not help your pretence become reality, Steve.

It's not a matter of capability.
It's a simple matter of want to.
You're arguing that God will be in the lake of fire torturing you.
No I am not. I am saying the Bible states that it is God tossing people into the lake of fire. He does not have to be there to torture them, just tossing people in a lake of fire is enough to cause "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" and given it states this is how God will punish them, it is torture.

The bible is quite clear that once you die and face the judgment due sin, God will not impose himself on you, at any level.
He'll say goodbye and that'll be the end of your interactions with him.
If it was just God saying goodbye, I would not call it torture. But you have forgotten the "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" God is choosing to inflict as punishment.

And "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" are your words, Steve, so I have to assume you are choosing to forget it.

He's plainly stated that he will dwell on the new earth with his people.
Having tossed those who reject him into a lake of fire, so they get that "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" as his punishment.

Those who are perishing will be left alone with their sin and the consequences thereof.
After God has tossed them into a lake of fire, so they get that "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" as his punishment.

Yep.
It's plainly stated in the bible.
Why do you want to disregard what the bible says, and then impose toompanidzo where kolasis is?
Because inflicting intense pain to punish is torture. It is right there in the definition.

torture
noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
 
Bristle away, but I could not disagree more!

The human rancher may have no other choice except to destroy the diseased cattle, but God has an infinite number of choices

If God can create a cow from scratch, then He sure as hell can remove disease from a cow without destroying the cow
No sophistication required in knowing this, just common sense...

Common sense is a contradiction of terms.

The longer the farmer waits to solve the problem the more cows will perish. The longer God waits the more people can be saved. God can remove the disease, that's the point. The cows are the ones that don't have the choice, the people do.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
torture
noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.


As I have repeatedly said, they are not the same thing (whether in English or Greek), but they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to want to pretend.


It is a fact that punishment can also be torture. Using Greek words does not help your pretence become reality, Steve.


No I am not. I am saying the Bible states that it is God tossing people into the lake of fire. He does not have to be there to torture them, just tossing people in a lake of fire is enough to cause "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" and given it states this is how God will punish them, it is torture.


If it was just God saying goodbye, I would not call it torture. But you have forgotten the "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" God is choosing to inflict as punishment.

And "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" are your words, Steve, so I have to assume you are choosing to forget it.


Having tossed those who reject him into a lake of fire, so they get that "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" as his punishment.


After God has tossed them into a lake of fire, so they get that "excruciating pain and agony and anguish" as his punishment.


Because inflicting intense pain to punish is torture. It is right there in the definition.

torture
noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
I have a novel thought then.

Just because you want it this way, and Jesus said that you will be judged by the words of your mouth.

Mat 12:37 WEB For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Luk 19:13-26 WEB 13 He called ten servants of his and gave them ten mina coins, and told them, ‘Conduct business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to reign over us.’ 15 “When he had come back again, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by conducting business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten more minas.’ 17 “He said to him, ‘Well done, you good servant! Because you were found faithful with very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 “The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, Lord, has made five minas.’ 19 “So he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Another came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief, 21 for I feared you, because you are an exacting man. You take up that which you didn’t lay down, and reap that which you didn’t sow.’ 22 “He said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant! You knew that I am an exacting man, taking up that which I didn’t lay down and reaping that which I didn’t sow. 23 Then why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank, and at my coming, I might have earned interest on it?’ 24 He said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to him who has the ten minas.’ 25 “They said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘For I tell you that to everyone who has, will more be given; but from him who doesn’t have, even that which he has will be taken away from him.


As such. For no other reason than this is exactly what you want, you will be tortured, but everyone else will be punished.

And God isn't the one who will torture you.
You'll be torturing yourself.
There. I think that solves the problem you're having here.

Everyone else will experience kolasis, but you.... toompanidzo.

And your toompanidzo will be the echoing words you spoke, which will act to remind you every moment, throughout eternity.

Unless of course you repent, and believe the gospel of Jesus.

Then the agony that drives you to speak such deception will be taken by Jesus.
As he described in Isaiah

Isa 53:5 WEB But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.

He's already taken the punishment that we deserved. So if you actually WANT to be tortured by your own beliefs, then I suppose that's what you'll get.
 
I've already done this, I think, but I'm happy to do so again:
  • You've claimed that kolasin (sometimes 'kolisin', in your parlance) is a Greek word, but this is false: you won't find an entry for it in the LSJ, to which you've appealed, for example. It's rather an inflection of kolasis, which is indeed a word.

Kolisin was obviously a typo. You can pick any post I've made on this forum (or any other) and even I myself can show you where I make at least one mistake in each one. Maybe insignificant errors of a grammatical or textual nature or it could be important points. For example, I will often type is when I mean isn't. That can be very significant because they mean the opposite of one another. I don't sweat that because these forums are temporal excursions providing me with feedback and instruction. I learn from everyone, even you. About, not only the subjects discussed here, but also about people and what motivates them to participate. You, for example, have, to me, a very interesting motivation. Well, it's not interesting itself but - how should I put this - the motivation behind your motivation is fascinating to me. I'm sort of playing with you. Teasing out that root motivation to see if you are capable of acknowledging it because that motivation, to me, seems really pathetic in a grandiose way.

From the article I linked to: "By the way, you can verify that Aristotle is using kolasis and timoria respectively here in the same way as described above for Plato’s writings. I also think it might be helpful as a reminder to mention that kolasin and kolasis have the same meaning and are simply different inflections of the same word. If this seems strange, it must be remembered that English words are inflected in a similar manner without changing meaning. As a simple example, the word “dogs” is a plural inflection of the word “dog” but they both refer to furry canines that bark. For the curious, kolasin is the accusative feminine singular form of kolasis. In summary, the meaning is the same."

This source is just some guy explaining something. Much like you and I.

According to Oxford dictionary, in grammar, an inflection is "a change in the form of a word (typically the ending) to express a grammatical function or attribute such as tense, mood, person, number, case, and gender."

This source is just an officious explanation of how words are commonly used. If the common use changes that becomes the definition. Gay, or queer, for example. God and hell. The meanings of those words have changed over time, which the links show. To an extent the latter use cancels out the former depending upon the commonality.

You say kolasin isn't a word. I'm completely willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are right and all of the Biblical references I have found over the years are wrong but I need to see reason for it. There also may be some other discrepancy. The only one that you have given, as far as I recall, is your opinion. Since your only motivation in this exchange is egocentric I have to decide how much effort I want to put into it. Generally, in a case like this; one word in 1 or 2 verses which could easily be exchanged for an equally acceptable one (kolasis) by both you and I, the logical recourse would be to do that. But, like I said, your pathetic egocentric motivation is what I'm really looking at here. I'm not judging it, by the way, I'm examining it. In a sense your approach is petty and so, then, is my own. On the other hand it could show me personally how similar my own is to yours and I can then examine that, so in that sense it is very important to me. The point of this examination isn't for me to be right or wrong about anything other than that.

I could say something totally absurd, intentionally or not and learn from it. I often quote Orwell and Picasso. All art is propaganda, the lie that allows us to see the truth. I'm an artist.

Aside from your motivation, it comes down to semantics, really, doesn't it. Weird, huh? This thread, really, is about hell. Okay, let's look at hell if you set aside semantics and doctrine. Really, hell is the proposition that God tortures the immortal souls of the wicked (demonic spirit creatures and human immortal souls) for their sins forever with literal fire in a literal place underground after death. You have to ask yourself a lot of questions about that, but ultimately it is hinged upon the question of how can fire harm a spirit being or immortal soul? Literally.

The question of kolasis (punishment; chastisement) is a question of figurative or literal.

I asked you earlier what the difference between translation and transliteration was and, naturally, you gave a smart ass answer. A translation is where a word in one language is given in another (target) that conveys, as much as possible, the same meaning. Transliteration is, according to the mighty Wikipedia, a type of conversion of a text from one script to another that involves swapping letters (thus trans- + liter-) in predictable ways, such as Greek ⟨α⟩ → ⟨a⟩, Cyrillic ⟨д⟩ → ⟨d⟩, Greek ⟨χ⟩ → the digraph ⟨ch⟩, Armenian ⟨ն⟩ → ⟨n⟩ or Latin ⟨æ⟩ → ⟨ae⟩.[1]

So, then, why do so many Biblical resources use kolasin? The Hebrew word for the Festival of Lights holiday is חנוכה. Why is the English transliteration Hanukkah or Chanukah? If I had to I could look it up. I don't really see any reason why I should care, especially in this case. Just use kolasis.

One thing, though, is this: "The problem can be neatly illustrated by taking a few Greek proper names, either historical or mythological. An exact transliteration of Σωκρατης and Περικλης ought to produce Sōkratēs and Periklēs; but because the Latin language knew these two men as Socrates and Pericles, their names have been spelled with a c for over 2,000 years. Nonetheless, there are Greek purists who prefer the English spellings Sokrates and Perikles, however pedantic that may seem. What are we to do with Aἰσχυλος — Aiskhulos or Aischylos or Aeschylus? The first version is an exact transliteration; the second can also be described as a transliteration, using Roman alphabet conventions (χ = ch, υ = y); but the third is a full-blown LATINIZATION, where a Greek diphthong (αι) has been spelled as its Latin counterpart (ae), and where the Greek noun ending -ος has been rendered by the equivalent Latin declension form (-us)." (Source)

Now, then, what is kolazein?

I really don't care because the issue in this topic is really, quite simply a question of whether or not the punishment is literal. I've shown how you can solve that problem without doctrine and semantics. Like a dictionary you only have to look at what people think the word means and how it is applied. The common use.

Continued
 
  • You've claimed that kolasis means 'pruning', which is at best deeply misleading, and at worse just false: the word means punishment vel sim., with the meaning of 'pruning' very much a 'side' translation, in the same sense that 'fart' is a side translation of pneuma. It's poor form to select obscure meanings from an entry in a lexicon and declare that this is what the word 'means'; this is why I said that the LSJ is a good source, but that we're dealing with a case of user error, namely yours.
    • Worse, you claimed that kolasis means 'pruning' in the context of Matthew 25:46, leading to the translation 'and they will depart to eternal pruning'(!).

So, here's the thing. What I do when someone proposes something the Bible says is I assemble a puzzle in my mind to test whether or not the proposal fits. Depending on the argument I have to express or demonstrate whether or not it does. The puzzle to me is the important aspect of an exchange such as this, the expression not so much because the expression is a translation of sorts. In other words either the piece in question fits or it doesn't. Determining that is the first and most important aspect to me personally, but the expression deals with any obstacles the other person in the discussion may have or might want to consider. Right or wrong, true of false, accurate or inaccurate.

Cutting off. So, at Matthew 25:46 they will depart to everlasting cutting off. In order for God's kingdom to be (healthy) they must be punished or chastised in the sense that they are removed. So, if pruning or cutting off as in being removed seems to you like a ridiculous interpretation what then is the alternative?

Everlasting is sort of the key word here, not punishment. Setting aside doctrine and semantics as I did with the spirit and immortal soul being tortured by literal fire I can do the same with everlasting. The Bible says the wage of sin is death. Upon death we are acquitted of our sins. (Romans 6:7) In a literal sense the wicked are not punished eternally for their sin since the wage isn't death followed by everlasting torment and we are acquitted of sin upon death.

The puzzle fits. Pruning or everlasting punishment in that regard isn't literal. The pruning or cutting off is a figurative expression of the literal everlasting removal or destruction.

So, you are absolutely right when you use the fart/pneuma comparison. The erroneous selection of the technical meaning of the application is valid if the meaning of kolasis is used in a figurative application. Kolasis means punishment but is used at Matthew 25:46 in a figurative way which is being misinterpreted as literal.
 
  • You claimed that the "Greek word for fart is βδέω". But of course that's a verb, and I was evidently, since I was referring to pneuma, talking about the noun. This indicates that you're confused about how verbs and nouns are distinguished in Greek, and perhaps even in English.

[Laughs] No [edit: expletive]! Okay. No kidding! They are words. I know what you meant. We'll get into why this is important to you later. It's that motivation I refer to earlier. And by the way, as I've said repeatedly here I suck at grammar. And math. And a lot of things. That doesn't help you. My stupidity doesn't make you look educated or intelligent.

  • You claimed that kolasin is the "feminine… form of kolasis". But this is senseless: it's a feminine noun, so this isn't the feminine form, as though a masculine were also available. I asked you about this, but you studiously avoided the question, perhaps because you had just uncritically copied the information from the Perseus Project.

I don't know what Perseus Project is. I don't care, but yes, that is exactly what I did. I copied it. I thought I made that clear. I linked to the source. It's not the puzzle it's the expression. The translation. This person says that, that person says this. I post the entire quote above. It's only what someone said. @John Milton pointed out :

I'm sorry, buddy. You're dead wrong.
καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The transliteration of the underlined word is "kolasin".

You can act like I'm the one who is ignorant if you want to, but you are the one confusing entry words with words.

You see? It doesn't matter to me from the perspective of my figurative puzzle, it only matters from a doctrinal or semantic expression of others. The figurative expression is a consideration of common uses. Are you right? Is John right? Is a specific Bible translation right? Is the doctrine right? Is LSJ right? Are any of these right or wrong? Yes. All of them are right and wrong. What I say is right and wrong. It's all only for consideration. Someone like you strictly adheres to a, well - I suppose your training. Back to the egocentric motivation. With some people it's religious, with others it might be secular, semantics and doctrine. To avoid bias one might consider alternative expressions.

Did I avoid the answer? Absolutely. Because at that point I was getting bored even with your fascinatingly pathetic and grandiose motive. Not just because I didn't know or care about the answer, though both are admittedly true, but because it (my avoidance) was an obtuse insult to your motivation. Almost like Douglas Adams HHGTTG example of a human repeating the word blood at a robot. I think that was it. A metaphorical flipping you the bird. A satirical parody of a discussion of vanity. A rejection of it's significance. I've done that quite a lot. You call it rambling, and it is. I think. For the most part.

This discussion between you and I has no real point outside of my observing your motivation. It's different than the one I'm having with others in the same thread. @stiggy wiggy and @treeplanter for example. Although I tend to do that with stig, as well. To his religious and to your intellectual superiority complex.

  • You've claimed that Aristotle and Plato 'say' that "Kolasin is a word that means pruning". You've declined to answer where they say this upon being challenged, declaring that this "isn't important", which constitutes an evasion.
In general, where you've not evaded, you've rambled or resorted to abuse. You might consider the sense in continuing to argue about a language you don't read and in reference to which you've undertaken no relevant study with someone who does and has.

There it is! [Laughs] Your true motivation is revealed again. Is that the third or fourth time. Fascinating!

Okay. Let's chop it up. I'll try not to ramble, but it isn't going to be easy.

I've explained the evading, avoidance and rambling. I don't think I've resorted to abuse. That's not how I roll, though my intentions are often misunderstood. To some I seem arrogant even while being self-deprecating. Supercilious while being ironical.

Seriously, though, does your argument make sense? Am I arguing any language, even one I don't read? We are talking about an English transliteration. I didn't even glance at the Greek because, well, I hate to say it, it's all Greek to me.

The article I linked to repeatedly, and by the way, I don't even know what this guy's conclusion is or whether it agrees with my "puzzle" or not. Right or wrong. Alternate perspective of a doctrinal or semantic nature. Don't assume that I make an argument based upon these considerations. I just consider.

That's what I mean by it isn't important. What you say, what I say, what the article says, what LSJ or Aristotle, Plato, John Milton, Dante Alegeri, says is not important to my puzzle in an absolute sense, especially considering that your motivation becomes somewhat tedious at times. As I'm sure mine is to you.

The article refers to LSJ, Aristotle and Plato as using kolasis which is the same as kolasin. You don't like that? Okay. Kolasis then.
 

Lucian

Active member
You‘ve now resorted to rambling in an extreme way, in addition to engaging in further abuse. But the following seem worth surfacing, since they approximate partial admissions of some cases where you’ve gone wrong:

Kolisin was obviously a typo.
I prefer to think that it was a mistake resulting from your not reading the language.
You say kolasin isn't a word. I'm completely willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are right…
Good: to confirm that this is more than a possibility, consult the LSJ, to which you’ve earlier appealed.
Kolasis means punishment but is used at Matthew 25:46 in a figurative way which is being misinterpreted as literal.
I’m glad you finally acknowledge your mistake. I see no evidence that the word is used figuratively at Matthew 25:46.
[Laughs] No [edit: expletive]! Okay. No kidding!
Well, quite; but I’m glad that you acknowledge this mistake also.
I don't know what Perseus Project is. I don't care, but yes, that is exactly what I did. I copied it.
Indeed, and hence your mistake.

You also admit that you’re ignorant of the language. I agree. But why, in that case, continue to resist the (very elementary) corrections of someone who isn’t, and abuse them in the meantime?
 
You‘ve now resorted to rambling in an extreme way, in addition to engaging in further abuse. But the following seem worth surfacing, since they approximate partial admissions of some cases where you’ve gone wrong:

That's the important thing to you, isn't it?

I prefer to think that it was a mistake resulting from your not reading the language.

Like I said, I didn't read the Greek. The language is English. You're only here to lord over others who reference Greek because that is your strength. Not for instruction or correction, but because of your own weakness. You're a bully.

Good: to confirm that this is more than a possibility, consult the LSJ, to which you’ve earlier appealed.

κόλ-α^σις , εως , ,

A. checking the growth of trees, esp. almond-trees, Thphr.CP3.18.2 (pl.).

2. chastisement, correction , Hp.Praec.5 , Pl.Ap.26a , al., Th.1.41 ; opp. τιμωρία , Arist.Rh.1369b13 ; of divine retribution, Ev.Matt.25.46, al.: pl., Pl.Prt.323e , al., Phld.Ir.p.52 W.

Pruning is defined, according to the dictionary, as “trimming (a tree, shrub, or bush) by cutting away dead or overgrown branches or stems, especially to increase fruitfulness and growth.” It's a common theme in the Bible. The wheat and the chaff. The cursed fig tree in Matthew 21.

I’m glad you finally acknowledge your mistake. I see no evidence that the word is used figuratively at Matthew 25:46.

I've never said it meant anything else, the question is how the meaning is applied. From the LSJ which you appeal to, once again, pruning is given because cutting off is how the word is used. That is why it means punishment.

Well, quite; but I’m glad that you acknowledge this mistake also.

Isn't it funny how only seeing me as wrong makes you happy? You don't see this? I'll rob you once more of your strength. The language is English. It's an English transliteration. I didn't reference the Greek.

Indeed, and hence your mistake.

You've yet to establish that.

You also admit that you’re ignorant of the language. I agree. But why, in that case, continue to resist the (very elementary) corrections of someone who isn’t, and abuse them in the meantime?

Because that someone is an overeducated bully motivated by weakness who can't demonstrate their ability or offer correction. Most overeducated idiots can actually do that to some extent, regurgitate what they were spoon fed, but your arrogance and need to dominate - your petty ego won't allow that. My pointing that out isn't abuse, it's casual observation.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
That's the important thing to you, isn't it?



Like I said, I didn't read the Greek. The language is English. You're only here to lord over others who reference Greek because that is your strength. Not for instruction or correction, but because of your own weakness. You're a bully.



The LSJ doesn't say. As you yourself have pointed out it's a good source but flawed. Use other sources. There are too many that use kolasin. Your only argument is that the word doesn't exist. You appeal to authority, cant think for yourself. The LSJ does say pruning as I've copied and linked to several times.

κόλ-α^σις , εως , ,

A. checking the growth of trees, esp. almond-trees, Thphr.CP3.18.2 (pl.).

2. chastisement, correction , Hp.Praec.5 , Pl.Ap.26a , al., Th.1.41 ; opp. τιμωρία , Arist.Rh.1369b13 ; of divine retribution, Ev.Matt.25.46, al.: pl., Pl.Prt.323e , al., Phld.Ir.p.52 W.

Pruning is defined, according to the dictionary, as “trimming (a tree, shrub, or bush) by cutting away dead or overgrown branches or stems, especially to increase fruitfulness and growth.” It's a common theme in the Bible. The wheat and the chaff. The cursed fig tree in Matthew 21.



I've never said it meant anything else, the question is how the meaning is applied. From the LSJ which you appeal to, once again, pruning is given because cutting off is how the word is used. That is why it means punishment.



Isn't it funny how only seeing me as wrong makes you happy? You don't see this? I'll rob you once more of your strength. The language is English. It's an English transliteration. I didn't reference the Greek.



You've yet to establish that.



Because that someone is an overeducated idiot motivated by weakness who can't demonstrate their ability or offer correction. Most overeducated idiots can actually do that to some extent, regurgitate what they were spoon fed, but your arrogance and need to dominate - your petty ego won't allow that. My pointing that out isn't abuse, it's casual observation.

It's amusing, but also somewhat sad* to see you and Lucian go at it like this. Sad because I see myself reflected in it, at least insofar as it has now become a pure ego versus ego matter, and I too have often engaged in such petulant behavior here. I have lost many a war by winning many a battle at getting in the last word. Where is Rodney King when we need him?

And all over an obscure Greek word, which is now no longer the subject matter.

* https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-word-to-describe-something-that-is-sad-and-funny-at-the-same-time
 
Last edited:
It's amusing, but also somewhat sad* to see you and Lucian go at it like this. Sad because I see myself reflected in it, at least insofar as it has now become a pure ego versus ego matter, and I too have often engaged in such petulant behavior here. I have lost many a war by winning many a battle at getting in the last word.

All over an obscure Greek word, which is now no longer the subject matter. Where is Rodney King when we need him?

* https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-word-to-describe-something-that-is-sad-and-funny-at-the-same-time

Excellent, Stig!

Take it a step further and imagine what these sorts of discussions look like to an outsider that's maybe curious as to whether they should look into the Bible.

This is what I wrote in my introductory post.

"Back then Atheist vs. Theist forums were plentiful; sometime during the early 21st century these types of forums began to rapidly decline. I personally think that people began to see the obvious fact that they weren't serving the utopian science atheist cause or working for God, but rather their own ego and ideological fixation that was actually nothing more than a sociopolitical frustration with occidental theocracy. The apostle Paul calls this internal debate externalized an operation of error."
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Excellent, Stig!

Take it a step further and imagine what these sorts of discussions look like to an outsider that's maybe curious as to whether they should look into the Bible.

I see what you're saying, but anyone who might think, "I WOULD look into what the Bible says, but that Christian dude on that discussion forum is a jerk, so I won't" is probably not a true seeker anyway. But then again I do sometimes fear that my lousy witness here makes me a fit candidate for one of those millstone necklaces Jesus talked about.
 

Lucian

Active member
I've never said it meant anything else, the question is how the meaning is applied.
Sure you did.
I didn't reference the Greek.
On the contrary, you’ve commented, repeatedly and at length, about the Greek, in the course of which you’ve tried to issue correctives while making elementary mistakes. You’re still trying to, incredibly.
You've yet to establish that.
I’ve already done so, and more than once. If you don’t agree, I’ll ask you again (since you evaded the question earlier) what the masculine form is.
Because that someone is an overeducated bully motivated by weakness who can't demonstrate their ability or offer correction. Most overeducated idiots can actually do that to some extent, regurgitate what they were spoon fed, but your arrogance and need to dominate - your petty ego won't allow that. My pointing that out isn't abuse, it's casual observation.
‘that… isn’t abuse’, he says, abusing his interlocutor both explicitly and by implication, for the umpteenth time.
 
Top