In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 – Vanity Fair: Christopher Hitchens—the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant—died today at the age of 62. Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the spring of 2010, just after the publication of his memoir, Hitch-22, and began chemotherapy soon after. His matchless prose has appeared in Vanity Fair since 1992, when he was named contributing editor.
He eloquently argued against tyranny his entire life. Including the tyranny of God.
Hope he was right about god.
He was the language instructor I never had in school.
Fuck the cancer! So sick of the shit!
This is one of these days you knew was coming but hoped would never get here. So sad.
Hitch was awesome, one of a kind I’ve spent hours over the years watching his debates and interviews and he was terrific up to the end. It’s horrible to think that we’ve lost such a great voice for the cause of reason.
He seemed to enjoy cigarettes. Kind of stupid, wasn’t he?
A god among men passes…
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Psa 82:6-7 KJV)
How fleeting the godhood of man, like a fantasy after his own likeness, after his own image.
It shall even be as when a hungry man dreams, And look– he eats; But he awakes, and his soul is still empty; Or as when a thirsty man dreams, And look– he drinks; But he awakes, and indeed he is faint, And his soul still craves: So the multitude of all the nations shall be, Who fight against Mount Zion.” (Isa 29:8 NKJ)
Not surprisingly, the quotes you choose from your book of fiction are not applicable. You have to acknowledge the concept of “godhood” to consider the consequence of “godhood of man” (whatever that means).
I will pray for his soul.
Ditto. Unironically.
Don’t be silly. Praying for Hitchens’ soul is like crying over spilled milk. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying daily — people who never even knew your god exists nor had the opportunity to know Him and enjoy a richer life because of that association. Don’t waste your time on Hitch. Get out there and take your wonderful message to the world! Start ringing those doorbells! Your mission isn’t complete until everyone in the world has heard the good news. What a shame it would be if even one soul went to hell because you were too lazy to tell them how terrific (but shy) your Savior is. Jesus won’t introduce himself — that’s YOUR job.
Time’s a wastin’.
Then I’ll pray for him too
Just remember that it only counts as prayer if you manage to stay awake. No cheating, pedro
Yawn!
Pray for yourself, delusional twit.
“I’ll pray for him”. So passive aggressive.
So… now INXS is looking for a new lead singer?
He’s in Hades reconsidering his rejection of the gospel, just like these spiritually dead folks who rejected the preaching while alive:
4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you.
5 They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1Pe 4:4-6 NKJ)
Is he ruled over by Zeus’ brother, condemned to eat pomegranate seeds for all eternity?
What are you 12? If you cant even say the name of your fictional damnation, why don’t you just keep it to yourself?
It’s a darn handy thing that you saved God the trouble of judging and condemning the man himself. If you could be kind, would you cure cancer?
Well seeing how you cannot follow Jesus’ commandments you’ll be ending up with him.
Cursor_
What exactly sent him to the Greek afterlife instead of say the Norse, Hindu or even Christian afterlife? By sending him to Hades wouldn’t that imply that you believe in Hades himself (along with his brothers)? Are you a polytheist now?
He’s dead. He’s probably in a refrigerator in a morgue. That’s all folks…
Religion is nothing more than a creation to ease one’s fears of the unknown. The afterlife is a superstition invented to appease people’s arrogance that they are SO special, one life isn’t possibly all they get.
“The Lord is my shepherd…” Well, some of us are NOT sheep & can think for ourselves.
Self contradiction, the only way you can know that, is if you are God…omniscient.
No doubt you agree effects have causes…for example, gravitational effects indicate mass nearby even if it can’t be seen.
So what causes the effect where 99.99% of mankind believes in the after life, even those like Hitchens and yourself who profess otherwise, but expend massive amounts of energy trying to dispel the idea…
No one pushes against what doesn’t exist.
So by your argument Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Faerie are all real too? After all, those myths continue to perpetuate, generation after generation. Must be *something* to it…
No, that’s your straw man argument, which you barely were able to beat.
You don’t bother waxing bold against “Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Faerie”, Hitchens didn’t write a book against them…
He wrote against God, and he did so because in his heart of hearts, he knows God exists.
Otherwise he would have ignored the concept of God completely, just as he did “Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Faerie “
But effects have causes! Millions believe in those three entities! Parents continue to perpetuate it generation after generation!
So what causes that effect?
Its hard to ignore foolish concepts when fools keep insisting on bringing them up, insinuating them into our government, reciting scripture on the internet, and waging war.
Every urban legend must be true! They are widely believed, and there are whole web sites devoted to debunking them.
They wrote against Urban Legends, and they did so because in their heart of hearts, they know every legend exists.
Strangely, believers in Santa Clause are not pushing to teach this fairy tale as science unless the wackos of other religions.
Hitchens wrote against religion and superstitious believes including the most common fantasy that a deity exists. Just because people talk and write about Harry Potter does not mean they give credence to the notion that he actually exists.
As real as politicians are honest
Wow! So I’m one of the 0.01% Gotta go look at my bank account…
First, it’s probably nowhere near 99.99% that believe in an afterlife.
Belief is something you are taught, simple as that. People are not born with the assumption of an afterlife, you are taught it. As such, any learned behavior will be believed by the majority of people that are taught it without being exposed to a differing view.
A child believes in Santa Clause, ergo he’s real? Or is it because children are taught he’s real?
Just as Santa Clause is comforting to children, so is the myth of an afterlife. When a clild is exposed to death for the first time, the parent inevitably reassures them that their loved one went to a better place, living in the clouds, with angels and will be watching down on them. That’s going to ease a child’s worries far better than the truth; “We don’t know and there’s no evidence to prove anything other than you simply “switch off” and then usually go on to be burned and ground into ash or buried in the ground to rot.”
Belief is only an effect of what you are taught, nothing more. People believed the earth was flat, en eclipse was a dragon eating the sun, and we’d never go to the moon. It was not the effect of divine knowledge, simply the effect of what they were taught.
Probably is not proof. Most of those who claim to be atheists are agnostics…the claim they and others can’t know for sure, but spend their time asking everyone what they think, like a dog chasing its own tail.
True atheists are hard to find, and given the phenomena of fox hole conversion of many of these, whether they really were atheists is open to debate.
So I’m being generous when I grant there are .01% in existence.
And those like Hitchings wouldn’t strive against what doesn’t exist…that is irrational.
Your evasion of my argument, by misdirecting to childish belief, is rejected. No one writes books for adults that Santa etc doesn’t exist…because we all know he doesn’t….
They write against God, because in our heart of hearts it is axiomatic someone caused all the intelligent design manifest in every part of creation.
He dismisses it as “childish belief.” He wouldn’t write against Santa if he weren’t real.
I mention Santa, etc. because I find them equally childish as a belief in god.
Hitchens didn’t bother writing against Santa because, to the best of my knowledge there are no wars fought over which is correct, Santa Clause or Sinterklaas. People do not blow themselves up in the belief they will go live in Santa’s workshop with 72 candy canes.
Yes, probably is not proof, hence the word PROBABLY and it works equally for your pro-fairy tale worship.
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
There is no such thing as agnostic. Either you accept a theist belief as true or you are an atheist. “I don’t know” is not acceptance and therefore puts that person in the category of atheist.
Yours is the old *tabula rasa* argument—that the mind is a blank slate.
But seven-eights of the mind’s activity is unconscious. That area has weird stuff embedded in it, even in a newborn. A deity archetype is just one of those unfortunate inheritances.
Which corroborates God exists, otherwise why are we hardwired to believe in Him?
“No one pushes against what doesn’t exist.”
I disagree. Whether or not a deity actually exists, those who can convince others that they channel a deity and receive messages and instructions of divine origin can exert great influence over their human “flock.” This influence has been historically misused for many evil purposes, including the slaughter of innocent people.
When the unquestioned authority of an invisible being is used as justification to kill another human being, religion becomes an extremely dangerous tool in the hands of those with the power of persuasion. Hitchens pushing back against the idea that these invisible gods exist can be seen as an effort to deprive evil people of one of their most powerful tools — ultimate authority.
You disagree wrongly. But for argument’s sake, name one fictional entity (apart from God) that you rail and rant against, equally as you do against God.
No fudging the facts, look into your past, as nasty as that is, and pick out the nonexistent entity you pushed at, as you do God.
Otherwise your life proves the point, you are the bit of nastiness that proves the rule.
Now you’re making even less sense than usual. I never “rant and rail” against fictional figures such as Santa and the Tooth Fairy because to the best of my knowledge, people have not used those OTHER fictional figures as an excuse to kill their fellow human beings. As far as I know, no group of self-serving elves has ever attacked and killed the inhabitants of an entire town and plundered their possessions with the battle cry, “Santa commanded us to take vengeance because the townspeople were naughty!”
That’s the sort of thing that only seems to occur within the realm of religion, and in your particular cult, it was there in the very beginning when Moses made a complete mockery of his own commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” A silly little commandment like that didn’t stop Moses from ordering the killing of many thousands or even millions of innocent people, including children. Instead, he simply claimed the ultimate authority from the Creator of the Universe, and his gang of Israelites willingly obeyed. The handy thing about this use of authority is that the burden of moral blame for all the killing was shouldered entirely by a fictional Supreme Being.
However, I promise you this… If people who adore and worship Frosty the Snowman ever go on a killing spree, claiming that their acts of murder are authorized by Frosty himself, I will do my best to expose Frosty as a false snowman, just as I now continue to expose your god as false. If that day ever comes, perhaps you’ll feel a little less persecuted.
Oh, don’t be so sure about those elves…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qixiv080feg
Re: “No one pushes against what doesn’t exist.”
All you can is to hide behind riddles where relative meaning doesn’t exist. What we push against is religion, the lies that “exist” provide people like you with financial or material gain. But that is all changing no matter what you say ‘with forked tongue’.
What changes is when skeptics personally experience the supernatural…it so blows away their tiny view of reality, they leap head long into the occult.
And become twice the child of hell they were before.
By definition, such an event cannot happened since a “supernatural” event cannot be experienced nor proven; otherwise it would be a natural event.
Hitchins is rightly roasting and toasting in hell even as we speak….
but perhaps this will cause him to reconsider his foolish rejection of God’s offer of salvation, so he can rise from hell, into life and not be cast into gehenna aka lake of fire:
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
…
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:13-15 NKJ)
Rather Hitchen’s Hell than your heaven. .01% huh? You are aware of the number of religions that don’t believe in an afterlife?
No?
Just that ignorant huh?
Silly Alfie. Still posting though………….
Bobbo!
A religion that doesn’t believe in an afterlife would be useless, yet you say a number of them exist!
Perhaps up and down the daisy chain that is true:
http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/30/caption-this-photo-34/
But I never encountered such a thing.
If your deity is everywhere, then it is also in hell.
To quote Alfie:
“Hitchins is rightly roasting and toasting in hell even as we speak….”
Another quote from Alfie:
“… the only way you can know that, is if you are God…omniscient.”
Logical conclusion:
Alfie is god.
Q.E.D.
Not analogous, undistributed middle. Anyone saying they KNOW God doesn’t exist is implicitly claiming omniscience because that is required to KNOW.
When I say Hitchens is roasting and toasting in hell because of his rejection of God’s life line, I predicate that upon his actions, and scripture, neither requiring omniscience to know.
That disconnect to reality is why you are agnostic/atheist/whatever….in spite of the intelligently designed creation all around and in you, that is ignored to suppose God doesn’t exist.
Your irrationality arises from the non critical nature of your conclusions…no doubt we could discover more disconnect with reality, in say for example, your political beliefs.
Bet you think Obama wants what’s best for the country, don’t you? That irrational belief in spite of all he has done against it…the disconnect with reality, is great…analogous to Grand canyon leaps into irrationality.
“Anyone saying they KNOW God doesn’t exist is implicitly claiming omniscience because that is required to KNOW.”
Equally:
Anyone saying they KNOW God *DOES* exist is implicitly claiming omniscience because that is required to KNOW.
You should be a little more cautious in your arguments.
False analogy, I don’t claim to know God exists because I know it, I have come to know He exists because of the evidence of intelligent design everywhere in creation, and via various philosophical arguments.
When you say you KNOW God doesn’t exist because you KNOW it, that isn’t the same, you aren’t basing your knowledge on facts, you are claiming to know apart from any evaluation of fact or reason.
That requires omniscience.
Maybe he is. So what? Can’t handle that?
Wishing a good afterlife for Christopher (Don’t Call Me Chris) Hitchens is an ultimate insult for this atheist in chief. Cover the world with superstitious crap and you might find a crack.
Reminds me of a pretty powerful theme in a book ((I want to say BridesHead Revisited but thats not what the book was mainly about–but it was a long book)) about an atheist old rich guy in contest with his religious wife and messed up kiddies. He rejected god after some event and rejected the local religious types that were constantly being encouraged to seek favors from the old guy by his wife. Well, at the end, on his death bed he refused absolution about 4 times=====but right at the very end, out of breath, weak, almost entirely dead, the wife and the priest ((Yes–it was Catholic Nonsense–often the very worst kind outside of the exotic)) “hear” him ask for absolution and final rites are given: another convert to the one and only faith.
And so it goes with religion===really only fit for the lame, hopeless, and almost entirely dead who can’t defend themselves anymore.
Silly Hoomans.
Hey! It’s HUMANS. Can’t you graduate the first grade?
On Dvorak there are several euphemisms some of us have invented or acquired from previous posts. For instance, on here you aren’t a moron, you are a moran. It’s actually quite funny if you saw the original post and image.
I am looking for a quote from Hitchens recited on Morning Joe about characteristics that Hitches admired and those he rejected. While searching I found the always excellent wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
and then for those that prefer the video medium- a series of rejoinders from Christoper:
http://vanityfair.com/video/2011/12/1329955421001
IMO–the wiki is a very nice demonstration of what a life worth living looks like. The videos: no point to them.
The medieval Catholic Church used God and the Bible to justify the torture and murder of heretics.
The Bible has been used to justify slavery.
The Bible has been used to justify the denial of a woman’s right to vote, or wear pants, or to speak freely.
Adolf Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and he considered himself to be doing the work of the Lord when he initiated the slaughter of millions of Jews, Poles, and other ethnic groups that were considered impure.
The Bible has been used to justify hatred, racism, and bigotry in its many forms.
History continues to record the crimes of Christians against humanity. Pederasty and pedophilia in the Catholic Church is only one small example.
An objective study of the sayings of Jesus might suggest that He was a racist.
I offer only one example from the scriptures:
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word.
So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
That’s why Alphred promotes the bible. He profits from it by manipulating scripture to suit his needs. The Bible is similar to statistics in that way.
You are a turd.
I must seem like a god to you then.
U took Jesus out of context…what shock.
26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Mat 15:26-28 NKJ)
“O Woman” implies Jesus had tears in His eyes as He spoke, inciting her to a level of faith that increased her reward to the nth level.
Christ was inspiring her to go for the gold, using a social norm He didn’t agree with, to do it.
That Christ didn’t agree with it, is clear from the teaching of the He sent forth to teach:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal 3:28-29 NKJ)
I ordered his last book, Arguably, minutes after the announcement. Mine’s ready-to-ship, but I wonder how long others will have to wait?
We all know the real test of a person isn’t whether or not they kill, bomb, rape, murder, maim, lie, cheat or steal.
By left-winger’s stereotypes of “Republican standards”, this guy wasn’t a “fag”, spoke English, wasn’t a Jew and didn’t have dark-colored skin either.
But OMG — he had different thoughts than the religious peoples.
Somewhere above, an angry God will someday impose his judgment … and it won’t be on his this guy.
It’ll be on morans who think this guy is as bad as Hitler because he had a different point of view.
Sheesh.
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
Therefore, Hutchinson dead and the Church (Catholic Church) is getting ready to celebrate Christmas.
Ignorance is bliss.
The subconscious need for some belief system or other is installed at the factory. The factory is any pregnant womb. We’re stuck with that fact & it’s REAL TOUGH to paddle upstream against the current of one’s own medieval psyche & jettison one’s Jeebus.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist (Lord, forgive me) and I was considered a lost cause because I asked questions in Sunday School class.
I was told by the Church the Bible does not contain any contradictions, and the Bible is the perfect Word of God.
One particular question I posed to the class went something like this:
Here are some quotes of Jesus from the Bible that cause me some confusion; I cannot seem to reconcile these contradictions.
Matthew 5:43:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
Luke 6:26:
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
But then Jesus also says these things:
Luke 14:26: “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 18:20 “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’”
These statements appear to be contradictory.
According to Jesus, I should love my enemies, but hate my family?
At the same time, I should honor my father and mother?
How do I hate my parents and honor them at the same time?
Then there is the esoteric question of eternal life.
Luke 10:25-28:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But then Jesus says later on:
Luke 18:18-22
A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
The answers in Luke 10 and Luke 18 are totally different.
Which of these answers am I to consider?
Enough said.
I was raised as a Roman Catholic. At the tender age of 6, I was asking similar questions in Catechism class. The nun called me out as being influenced by the devil and if I kept questioning the bible I would go to Hell. My parents were notified of my ‘indiscretions’ and promptly removed me from class. Thank you mom and dad!
The nun was right, you are going to hell…nothing so far has proved the nun wrong.
That you will learn immediately upon death. Evidently gravity pulls the soul down in the hell, so God dispatches angels to bring the righteous to “paradise” or “Abraham’s bosom”, while the unsaved descend into the earth:
22 “So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 “And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said,`Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’
(Luk 16:22-24 NKJ)
This imagery has a real connection to reality, hell is real and the torments actual.
Hell however, isn’t the eternal state:
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:13-15 NKJ)
So you will get a chance to reconsider your rejection of God, in a environment where denial of His truth is impossible, but also in a place where its impossible you play the hypocrite.
But that is for another thread.
You are wrong, Jesus didn’t contradict Himself in those examples.
In Luke 14:26 Christ did NOT say “don’t love or honor your parents etc”, He said you must “hate” them in the sense of “love them less than God”, because following God may mean they shun you:
26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
27 “And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28 “For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it–
29 “lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, (Luk 14:26-29 NKJ)
Jewish Rabbis like Christ used extremes to illustrate truth.
In Christ’s day, choosing to follow Christ often resulted in being shunned by the Jewish community including one’s parents. So one should ‘count the cost’ before deciding whether to follow Christ, or not, it may mean the loss of everything they have, including their own parents.
Hence one must “hate” their parents, be willing to lose them, or you cannot be Christ’s disciple.
It behooves all to Count the cost to see if it can be paid, lest one be mocked for being a fool. If the lack of parental consent will stop you from following Christ, then be smart enough not to start but fail to finish, lest the entire community mock you for starting to follow Christ, and then failing.
You be a fool in their eyes, and the ancient Jewish community would not be kind, they would relentlessly remind you of your folly.
One’s standing in the community is important, it was only loving Christ forewarn potential followers of the risks.
Neither is Luke 10:25-28 contrary to Luke 18:18-22, what is required for eternal life is the same in both:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’;
The rich ruler in Luke 18:18 violated that when he proved he loved his money more than God.
No doubt he was there in Luke 10 and approved of Christ’s saying, not realizing he failed to do it. Sometimes words aren’t enough, one must demonstrate a truth for it to be accepted.
So nothing is totally different, you are without excuse, this isn’t rocket science. Reading Christ’s words as carefully as you want others to read your words, would have revealed your mistake.
You wanted to find fault with Christ, but you failed. Rather than taking Christ down, you only diminished yourself. That is just, fitting one be hoisted on their own petard.
“In Christ’s day, choosing to follow Christ often resulted in being shunned by the Jewish community including one’s parents. So one should ‘count the cost’ before deciding whether to follow Christ, or not, it may mean the loss of everything they have, including their own parents.
Hence one must “hate” their parents, be willing to lose them, or you cannot be Christ’s disciple.”
Alfred, that is so lame an excuse. Link me to one historical reference where you could get that meaning of “hate”.
Context identifies how a word is meant, not irrelevant texts. Also underlying the Greek, is Aramaic speech:
μισέω, ‘to hate’, is usually said to have its Semitic sense, ‘to love less’ (16:13 par. Mt. 6:24; Gn. 29:31–33; Dt. 21:15-17; 2 Sa. 19:7; Pr. 13:24; Is. 60:15; Mal. 1:2f.; Rom. 9:13; 1 Jn. 2:9; SB I, 434). This is no doubt how the phrase was understood by Matthew’s tradition which has φιλῶν … ὑπέρ.… At the same time, however, it should be noted that the Hebrew sìānē’ has the sense ‘to leave aside, abandon’, and this sense may be present: cf. the use of ἀρνέομαι in 9:23 diff. 14:26, and the use of ἀφίημι in 18:29 par. Mk. 10:29. The thought is, therefore, not of psychological hate, but of renunciation (O. Michel, TDNT IV, 690f.).
Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New international Greek testament commentary (592). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.
Maybe when god was personally guiding every translation he could have made sure it was a little more clear.
That way his followers wouldn’t need to use pedantic vagaries of dead languages to justify out dated, illogical and nonsensical scripture.
TEAD, a link to a real record of history please. (not the bible, and not about the bible)
Never heard of him, don’t give a shit.
That’s why you are intellectually constipated.
No, I am not. As a matter of fact, I finish one history book every ten days, on average. I have seen more of “real” life than any of you folks here, based on my occupation. I watch virtually no television, and do not get most of my information from magazines or radio, either. You, sir, are an an asshole.
Soooo, you get all your news from history books? That’s… um …unique.
What! You learn more about life from books than years of blogging 24/7 from momma’s basement, on DU…with Bobbo?
http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/30/caption-this-photo-34/
Who knew?
You want a cookie or something?
An acquaintance of mine, not particularly bright, once told me a theory he wondered about. He wondered if, before death, whatever idea you had about any life after death was, somehow, what you experienced. In other words, an eternal existence amongst angels and green fields was what you got if you believed in the traditional heaven, because your brain manuactured an eternity that you experienced right before death. Eternity meant you experienced an eternity. Likewise, it manufactured a hell for eternity it that was what you believed.
So, this guy probably would have gotten a complete end of his existence since he believed in that. This may be more than most Dvorak readers can comprehend, I assume. Nonetheless, I think my friend had a unique insight.
Um… you might want to pick up a science book once and a while. The brain and all it has “manufactured” dies with you. Your friend is delusional, and you are apparently susceptible to delusions.
Put your friends theory to a test. A priest is thinking, just before he dies, that heaven would be filled with little boys he can abuse. Can you comprehend what that means ABO? Most here on Dvorak can.
Sorry, you just are just to dim to understand the concept, aren’t you? As to you final point, it would fit the theory my friend outlined. I never said I agreed with it, dipshit.
By the way, I have a Masters in physics, bucko.
As a Masters in Physics, one would wonder why you “read a history book every 10 days”. It’s possible I suppose, but it doesn’t seem plausible. I guess if you were out of work and decided to become an Historian…
It also seems implausible that you would defend the bible thumping antics of Alfred, having that pure logic scientific background of yours.
As they still cannot determine the mass, if any, of a pea…it would appear you have a Master in nothing real.
Again, la-tee-dah
Do you feel better having promoted yourself above the rabble of strangers on a blog?
My crack about the mass, if any, of a Higgs boson was in jest, not derision. Its all marvelous to me.
That’s likely NOT an original thought…I vague recall a Twilight Zone or similar show to that effect…where one manufactures the reality they will eternally endure.
Recall Ghostbusters, the “Destructor” became “Stay puff the sailor” because Murray couldn’t restrain the thought.