The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:If you want to look less stupid, reply to what I said and not what you imagined I said. I never said he invented it. I said he pulled it into the religion. I even clarified that in the post immediately above yours. I can't really help you any more than that.

You are a dumb idiot. And you are still fucking wrong. Your distinction without a difference does not make you less wrong about your gullible idiocy.

OK Kaelik, where in the Old Testament did they have the specific concept of eternal torture forever for the "bad" and not the "good"?

Or are you telling me that one cannot say Akira Toriyama introduced glowing auras of power to Dragonball Z for Kaio-Ken and later the Super Saiyans without claiming that he was the inventor of such things rather than blatantly plagiarising from portrayals of Hindu (and probably other) deities as having auras of power?

Oh, no, those were real Muslims. Just as today's Christians are just as Christian as the lunatics who sacked Constantinople in... was it the Fourth Crusade? Whenever.

But the nature of the dominant features of the religions have changed. Just as Baghdad was once one of the richest and most advanced cities on Earth, and now is... well. Or as how Britain was once incredibly wealthy, influential, and the source of major scientific progress, and now is... well.

Things change.

Omegonthesane wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:If you want to look less stupid, reply to what I said and not what you imagined I said. I never said he invented it. I said he pulled it into the religion. I even clarified that in the post immediately above yours. I can't really help you any more than that.

You are a dumb idiot. And you are still fucking wrong. Your distinction without a difference does not make you less wrong about your gullible idiocy.

OK Kaelik, where in the Old Testament did they have the specific concept of eternal torture forever for the "bad" and not the "good"?

Or are you telling me that one cannot say Akira Toriyama introduced glowing auras of power to Dragonball Z for Kaio-Ken and later the Super Saiyans without claiming that he was the inventor of such things rather than blatantly plagiarising from portrayals of Hindu (and probably other) deities as having auras of power?

Ugh, you people are so fucking dumb.

"You don't understand the new testament, so you saying dumb things like this is annoying."

"WELL IF YOU ARE SUCH AN EXPERT ON THE OLD TESTAMENT, THEN TELL ME ALL ABOUT HOW THE OLD TESTAMENT SAID SOMETHING THAT IT DIDN'T SAY AND THAT JESUS INVENTED BY TIME TRAVELING TO THE 2-3rd CENTURY AND THE INTRODUCING TO CHRISTIANS THEN WHO WENT BACK AND WROTE IT INTO STUFF THAT HE DIDN'T SAY IF HE EVER SAID ANYTHING!"

Kaelik wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote:

Kaelik wrote:
You are a dumb idiot. And you are still fucking wrong. Your distinction without a difference does not make you less wrong about your gullible idiocy.

OK Kaelik, where in the Old Testament did they have the specific concept of eternal torture forever for the "bad" and not the "good"?

Or are you telling me that one cannot say Akira Toriyama introduced glowing auras of power to Dragonball Z for Kaio-Ken and later the Super Saiyans without claiming that he was the inventor of such things rather than blatantly plagiarising from portrayals of Hindu (and probably other) deities as having auras of power?

Ugh, you people are so fucking dumb.

"You don't understand the new testament, so you saying dumb things like this is annoying."

"WELL IF YOU ARE SUCH AN EXPERT ON THE OLD TESTAMENT, THEN TELL ME ALL ABOUT HOW THE OLD TESTAMENT SAID SOMETHING THAT IT DIDN'T SAY AND THAT JESUS INVENTED BY TIME TRAVELING TO THE 3rd CENTURY AND THE INTRODUCING TO CHRISTIANS THEN WHO WENT BACK AND REREAD EARLY WORKS WITH THIS NEW CONCEPTION IN MIND!"

I still don't understand what you're on about. The New Testament says there's a lake of fire where you go and the Old Testament does not. The introduction of Hell as a place of punishment instead of a place where everyone gets dumped when it's over in this specific work of shitty cobbled together literature is the preaching of Jesus.

I mean, Irkalla predates them all but it wasn't where you got tortured forever, it was just where you were bored out of your mind and got to wish you had a more exciting mortal life.

Omegonthesane wrote:I still don't understand what you're on about. The New Testament says there's a lake of fire where you go and the Old Testament does not. The introduction of Hell as a place of punishment instead of a place where everyone gets dumped when it's over in this specific work of shitty cobbled together literature is the preaching of Jesus.

Again, if you have no understanding of the new testament, maybe stop aggressively stating your ignorance of the new testament as an opinion.

Time travel now? Wow.

Kaelik wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote:I still don't understand what you're on about. The New Testament says there's a lake of fire where you go and the Old Testament does not. The introduction of Hell as a place of punishment instead of a place where everyone gets dumped when it's over in this specific work of shitty cobbled together literature is the preaching of Jesus.

Again, if you have no understanding of the new testament, maybe stop aggressively stating your ignorance of the new testament as an opinion.

Cut the obfuscatory bullshit. You have said like times that other people "don't understand the New Testament" or words to that effect. Every time you've been told to specify what makes you say that and every time YOU HAVE FUCKING REFUSED.

So. Once again. The statement that you are disputing was that, in the specific context of the Bible - of the New Testament as opposed to the Old -

RobbyPants wrote:Everyone always talks about Jesus like he's this chill guy, and they forget that he put eternal hell into the equation.

Over and over you have flaty claimed that this is wrong without stating what the fuck your position is that makes it wrong. The only obvious logical conclusion is that you are saying that eternal hell was already a concept in the Old Testament - is this what you are in fact saying, and if not, what the fuck ARE you in fact saying?!

Omegonthesane wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote:I still don't understand what you're on about. The New Testament says there's a lake of fire where you go and the Old Testament does not. The introduction of Hell as a place of punishment instead of a place where everyone gets dumped when it's over in this specific work of shitty cobbled together literature is the preaching of Jesus.

Again, if you have no understanding of the new testament, maybe stop aggressively stating your ignorance of the new testament as an opinion.

Cut the obfuscatory bullshit. You have said like times that other people "don't understand the New Testament" or words to that effect. Every time you've been told to specify what makes you say that and every time YOU HAVE FUCKING REFUSED.

So. Once again. The statement that you are disputing was that, in the specific context of the Bible - of the New Testament as opposed to the Old -

RobbyPants wrote:Everyone always talks about Jesus like he's this chill guy, and they forget that he put eternal hell into the equation.

Over and over you have flaty claimed that this is wrong without stating what the fuck your position is that makes it wrong. The only obvious logical conclusion is that you are saying that eternal hell was already a concept in the Old Testament - is this what you are in fact saying, and if not, what the fuck ARE you in fact saying?!

So in other words, you don't know what words meant, and you thought my repeated criticism of people's inability to comprehend the new testament was actually about them being wrong about the old testament.

Look dumbshit, I'm not refusing to clarify my point, you have never once asked me to clarify my point. Because you keep assuming that it's a point about the old testament, because you are stupid.

Now, I could clarify my point, but right now, we have approximately two people making completely evidenceless and argumentless assertions and so I'm going to keep pointing out that you are still wrong and still an idiot, without teaching an entire fucking course on the new testament first.

There are at least 6 ways I could point out that you are wrong, some of which depend on which mutually contradictory and stupid things you believe, and rather than address all of them only to be yelled at for strawmanning I'm waiting for one of the two of you to put the 30 fucking seconds it would take to make any argument at all for your position, so then I can address just that argument only and use only the relevant criticisms to show why your failure to understand the new testament is causing you to say dumb shit. (Or Robby's.)

Premise 1: The Old Testament's description of the afterlife is Sheol, a pit of basically sod all where you all get chucked regardless.
Evidence: Well it seems to have fooled Wikipedia

Premise 2: In the Gospels, Jesus instead describes a pit of eternal torture where you go if you don't follow him.
Evidence: Luke, chapter 16, verses 19 to 31 seems a good place to start, since it specifically opines on eternal torture versos making it to God's side.

Conclusion: Within the picture painted by the books alone Jesus and not Yahweh is the first to make eternal torture for sinners an explicit part of the mythos.

Save for literal chapter and verse citations there is not one microsyllable of that argument which is not adequately expressed by the sentence

[Jesus] put eternal hell into the equation.

So fuck you for being wilfully obtuse.

Omegonthesane wrote:Premise 1: The Old Testament's description of the afterlife is Sheol, a pit of basically sod all where you all get chucked regardless.
Evidence: Well it seems to have fooled Wikipedia

Premise 2: In the Gospels, Jesus instead describes a pit of eternal torture where you go if you don't follow him.
Evidence: Luke, chapter 16, verses 19 to 31 seems a good place to start, since it specifically opines on eternal torture versos making it to God's side.

Conclusion: Within the picture painted by the books alone Jesus and not Yahweh is the first to make eternal torture for sinners an explicit part of the mythos.

Save for literal chapter and verse citations there is not one microsyllable of that argument which is not adequately expressed by the sentence

[Jesus] put eternal hell into the equation.

So fuck you for being wilfully obtuse.

See there you go, now that you made a stupid argument, I can make fun of you more specifically.

So let's start with the most specific and limited, and work backwards.

1) The verse says it's about balancing, and no where at all says that it is eternal. Your evidence for eternal torture is pretty shitty.

2) The new testament was in zero cases originally written in English, instead in this specific case it was originally in Greek, and the word used that was translated into english as 'hell' was in fact 'hades' which is elsewhere translated into english as other shit like 'grave' or 'the place of the dead' and in fact, in this example, the good happy one also went to hades, because everyone goes to hades, and he just happened to be having a better time of it.

3) The verses you quote are a parable. If Jesus was just a guy hanging around, and as part of a parable he told, he completely reinvented the state of the religion, you'd think someone would have mentioned it, but no one seems to care any more about this then when he talks about the prodigal son? Why is that? Could it be because parables are just parables and no one cares about their truth, just their spiritual meaning? Or perhaps some people already thought that was what happened? Or maybe the read it and didn't think it changed anything because it doesn't say there is eternal torture?

4) Parables are usually useful because they contextualize a moral in the form a story that other people can understand, so weird that he would pick the middle of a parable to introduce a complete change in how the afterlife works. Or... maybe he didn't, maybe he just used a parable that people had heard before elsewhere, and so it didn't blow their minds. Hey, there is a Talmudic tradition that has this exact parable in it. Now, maybe they totally just stole it from Jesus, or maybe, hey, it's not incompatible with their religion, and it was a story already in circulation so people did already understand it without Jesus having to explain that he was reinventing the afterlife.

5) Way more complex than all that, once there was a guy (not) named Mark, and he wrote a story that probably wasn't based on anything a guy named Jesus ever did or said, but if you did believe it was, still, Mark wrote that story, then years later, a guy (not) named Matthew wrote a redactory version of Mark and added his own shit, and there is no evidence that any of the shit he added was in any way based on reality rather than stuff he made up to fit his message. Then later a guy (not) named Luke wrote a redactory version of that and Mark to make a different point. Even if Jesus was a real person that actually existed, still, there is no evidence that something showing up in Luke and not Mark would be in any way anything he actually said. So the sentence "Jesus Xed" is pretty much always wrong, no matter what the sentence is, but even more so when you base it on reading a passage in Luke in English and then just pretending it says shit it doesn't say.

This is a dumb argument. The reason why is that you're applying your own understanding of someone's scriptures and then saying that everyone from religion X must believe it this way because I think that's what it says.

for instance; The argument about Sheol in the OT very much ignores that Israelites and Jews of different time periods and even within the same time period had different eschatologies. Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes in the 2nd temple Judaism all had different views of eternal punishment, or eternal reward for that matter. And their views often differed from the Masoretic eschatology that followed. If we go earlier, it seems that the Babylonian influenced Jews had a different view of the afterlife from the Canaanite influenced Israelites (depending on your view of the way that Jewish religion developed). To break it down by saying "sheol means this only and ever" is simply incorrect when all of these groups had significantly more developed eschatologies that don't rely on the understanding of a single word.
Many ANE religions had the concept of eternal damnation for those who tipped the scales of (pick a god of the afterlife) and it seems that Judaism did at some times, for some groups, as well.

The same applies for Christians, where there is significant differences today between unitarians, annihilationists and "traditionalists" and then there are differences within those groups (who tend to be protestants) and more differences between those and Catholic and the various Orthodox groups.
And if we go to the various groups of historic Christianity, things can get really cray cray.

tldr; Different people with the same holy text believe different things and it's foolish to say that they all believe the same thing because your reading of the text is something different again.

Fair enough. My argument was too broad stroke.

lightweight MMA fighter Khabib just pounded an American to dust and said Allah Akbar in his post fight interview in NYC