Morality Compromised By Christianity

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, sure, why not? The Greeks had six different words for love. We have just the one. It means just what you choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

Ehh... sorta... Kinda... Actually most of those 6 words would not be translated as "love" in most contexts. Actually, most of the time we'd translate those more like "friendship", "hospitality", or even "egotism", if we want to preserve the original meaning.

And even the "egotism" one, is only technically a different word, but only in that it's a compound word meaning literally "self-love". As in, it's actually made up of exactly those two words. It's "philos" which is already on the list, plus "autos" which means literally "self". Also unlike some modern ways to say you like yourself -- e.g., "self-esteem" -- for them it was invariably something negative. I.e., really "egotism", "selfishness", "vanity" and the like, rather than "love". I can't think of any instance of that word that you'd actually translate as just the word "love" into modern English.

The only ones we'd really confuse in a translation is the brotherly kind of love, the non-romantic love inside one's family ("e.g., I love my mum"), and what we'd more aptly call "lust" these days. But you could technically translate the last one as "love" too, I suppose. Even though the more accurate translation really is "lust" quite invariably.

At any rate, I'd say if we're that generous with what words mean "love", we have more than that in just about any modern language. I mean, in addition to those I already mentioned, we have stuff like "respect", "esteem", "empathy", "compassion", "liking", "fondness", etc, which are just about in the same range for us as those six for the Greeks.

Hell, even for literally romantic "love", we have synonyms like "adoration", "affection", "adulation", "passion", "crush" (e.g., to have a crush on a classmate), "hots" (as in, have the hots for someone), "desire", etc. That's literally 8 words in English that can translate just 1 of those words in Greek. Plus we can borrow some more from the previous list, like "fondness" can also express a different nuance of romantic interest.

Plus, if we allow compound words like "self-love" for the Greeks, then we have to allow stuff like "self-esteem", "self-respect", and the like for modern English too.


TL;DR: no, almost no modern languages have less words for love. In fact most have A LOT MORE than the Greeks ever had

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Love = obey = fear in the Bible. Although it is a bit directional. Man’s relationship to god is mirrored by a woman’s relationship to her husband. Men have the advantage of god not being real while women have to deal with real men treating them like ****.

Not really, no. The Hebrews had words for love (e.g., אַהֲבָה) that were very different from the one for fear I already talked about before in this thread.

In fact, you'd think it would be obvious they needed a different word, since they have to say stuff like "because the LORD loved you" (Deu 7:8) or "because the LORD loved Israel" (Kings 10:9, 2 Chronicles 9:8) and so on. You can probably guess that they weren't going to use something that can mean "the LORD feared you" or "the LORD feared Israel" instead

Edit: anyway, unlike some modern translations that arth mentioned, they tended to be very explicit that you're supposed to fear the lord. They didn't go for euphemisms or implications of another word. They just said so.

[Delvo]

In Exodus, God made it perfectly explicit more than once that he wouldn't travel with them because they were so rotten that they'd surely piss him off and then he'd lose control and wipe them all out. Given that relationship, there's no way to honestly mistake the use of the word "fear" for anything else but fear.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Ehh... sorta... Kinda... Actually most of those 6 words would not be translated as "love" in most contexts. Actually, most of the time we'd translate those more like "friendship", "hospitality", or even "egotism", if we want to preserve the original meaning.

And even the "egotism" one, is only technically a different word, but only in that it's a compound word meaning literally "self-love". As in, it's actually made up of exactly those two words. It's "philos" which is already on the list, plus "autos" which means literally "self". Also unlike some modern ways to say you like yourself -- e.g., "self-esteem" -- for them it was invariably something negative. I.e., really "egotism", "selfishness", "vanity" and the like, rather than "love". I can't think of any instance of that word that you'd actually translate as just the word "love" into modern English.

The only ones we'd really confuse in a translation is the brotherly kind of love, the non-romantic love inside one's family ("e.g., I love my mum"), and what we'd more aptly call "lust" these days. But you could technically translate the last one as "love" too, I suppose. Even though the more accurate translation really is "lust" quite invariably.

At any rate, I'd say if we're that generous with what words mean "love", we have more than that in just about any modern language. I mean, in addition to those I already mentioned, we have stuff like "respect", "esteem", "empathy", "compassion", "liking", "fondness", etc, which are just about in the same range for us as those six for the Greeks.

Hell, even for literally romantic "love", we have synonyms like "adoration", "affection", "adulation", "passion", "crush" (e.g., to have a crush on a classmate), "hots" (as in, have the hots for someone), "desire", etc. That's literally 8 words in English that can translate just 1 of those words in Greek. Plus we can borrow some more from the previous list, like "fondness" can also express a different nuance of romantic interest.

Plus, if we allow compound words like "self-love" for the Greeks, then we have to allow stuff like "self-esteem", "self-respect", and the like for modern English too.


TL;DR: no, almost no modern languages have less words for love. In fact most have A LOT MORE than the Greeks ever had

Well said Hans.

But then if you endorse what arthwollipot is saying, you don't need all those extra words to express different, perhaps subtle variations, in meaning. One word serves all so use can use Fear and Love, and say the words mean whatever you like.

Meaningful conversation where, all parties understand what is being said, is the casualty however.

[HansMustermann]

You know, actually now I'm reminded of George Carlin's seven words. Including the fact that one of his was a compound word based on one already on the list

[HansMustermann]

That said, I will also go the opposite way and actually make arth's point for him. Only I'm gonna go Latin on its ass.

I was actually listening to an interview on radio, some years ago, where someone had to clarify what kind of "authority" they're wary about. And he actually had to explain that he doesn't mean he distrusts the authority of a doctor or professor or other expert on a subject, he means he doesn't respect unearned authority like, say, that of a king. That was several MINUTES lost into just explaining that basically, no, it's not the meaning of the word that allowed the other guy to make a complete strawman of his position, even though it technically was using an exact quote.

Well, the Romans actually used different words for the different kinds of "authority" we use the same word for. Including:

- auctoritas: the "authority" of an "author". No, really it came from the word for an "auctor"="author". Expertise, if you will. Though it included not just books. The Senate during the republic for example had auctoritas because they were literally the authors of Rome. A lawyer had auctoritas too. Basically they couldn't (directly) make you do anything, but you'd be well advised to listen.

- imperium: literally just military rank and jurisdiction. Each consul in a war during the early republic had imperium over one legion. Root of the later word for the empire (meaning literally just the area where Rome had jurisdiction by virtue of military might) or for the emperor (the imperator was literally the guy who had imperium over all that.)

- potestas: power based on coercion. Literally the power to make someone do something. So if you're collecting protection money on the authority of Don Giovanni, yeah, "potestas" is the word they'd use. Or as a less dramatic example, a cop would have potestas to make you pull over.

Plus a couple of others.

So, yeah, a Roman orator would have had no problem saying just that he distrusts potestas or imperium or whatever, without it confusing anyone about whether or not he also distrusts auctoritas. We, meanwhile, have to make do with reusing the same word.

[Skeptical Greg]

Very good dissertation..

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Interesting argument.

We have only one word for love so we can make it mean whatever we like???

I'd like to see you fill that argument out a bit.

I'm basically saying the same thing as Hans, but putting a slightly different spin on it.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

TL;DR: no, almost no modern languages have less words for love. In fact most have A LOT MORE than the Greeks ever had

What I'm saying is that all those different words are indeed used in regular English, but the Bible (for the most part - there are exceptions - don't @ me) uses the word "love". Love can, in English, mean a lot of different things. Its meaning is flexible. "Adoration" is, indeed, one alternative interpretation of the word "love". So is "worship".

So why not "fear"? Why can "fear" not also have more than one meaning?

Originally Posted by Thor 2

But then if you endorse what arthwollipot is saying, you don't need all those extra words to express different, perhaps subtle variations, in meaning. One word serves all so use can use Fear and Love, and say the words mean whatever you like.

I'm saying rather that the Bible uses the words "fear" and "love" so we are more or less free to give them different, perhaps subtle variations in meaning.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Meaningful conversation where, all parties understand what is being said, is the casualty however.

Indeed, it is true that meaningful conversation where all parties understand what is being said is largely absent from the Bible.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So why not "fear"? Why can "fear" not also have more than one meaning?

And that's where scholarship and text analysis come in. Just navel gazing over "what if it could be translated differently into English" is not it.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm saying rather that the Bible uses the words "fear" and "love" so we are more or less free to give them different, perhaps subtle variations in meaning.

Not to the extent where
A. you actually postulate it means something entirely different than "fear", and
B. you can just pull that out of the ass, based on exactly ZERO data.

In fact, your own example from Greek makes the opposite case: yes, they actually used different words when they meant different things. Just because you might translate both "Storge" and "Eros" as "Love" in English (if you're a completely incompetent translator, I guess), doesn't mean that the Greeks too used them just as interchangeably.

In fact, they did not. Tom Lehrer's "he really loved his mother" about Oedipus Rex would have been not particularly funny in Greek. Either you use "storge", and then it has no horny connotation, and nobody understands what you're going on about, or you use "eros" and then it's explicitly "lust" and not really an innuendo.

In fact, just like my authority example, it shows more the opposite trend: ancient languages tended to have less of the the whole modern subtlety and poetic use. Their use of language is really more precise. When they need a new meaning it's more common that they make up a new word (you'd be surprised how much of Latin is only as old as Cicero, for example), even if it's a compound word like philautia. (And if you go even farther back, you find the Mesopotamians actually adding extra signs that aren't read, to every single word, to make it abundantly clear which meaning or homophone they mean there.)

But anyway, it just shows why you must look at what is in the original text, and what other evidence we have about what meant what when, not just just go, "well, both could be translated as 'love' in English"

[Thor 2]

Well, having exhausted the subject of how words can mean whatever you like, I would draw the attention of the reader to another example of morality being adversely effected the Christian religion.

I have mentioned before, the issue of the faithful feeling scoured clean of their sins by the sacrifice of Jesus, but the issue is muddled by the quest of Christians, particularly RCC ones, in seeking further forgiveness from God. This may seem cynical of me, but I think the strategy of the RCC is motivated by greed. Buying your forgiveness from God, via the priest, is a money spinner.

The issue I find troubling, is that forgiveness is requested of God, not the victim of the sin committed. If there was such a victim.

[HansMustermann]

Well, in modern days, meh, you can get a civil lawsuit anyway. In the middle ages, though, an important part of justice was the weregeld (literally "man-money") to be paid to, for example, the family of the guy you killed. Which otherwise had no safety net. There was no such thing as social support or anything. The church pretty much changed that to paying to the church.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

But anyway, it just shows why you must look at what is in the original text, and what other evidence we have about what meant what when, not just just go, "well, both could be translated as 'love' in English"

Yeah but 99% of people don't. They just assume that they know what the words mean.

[HansMustermann]

Probably, yes. But in this case they'd coincidentally reach the right conclusion anyway. Because as was said before, we don't actually have any indication that the OT (and even bits of the NT) intended to say anything else but "fear" when they used the word "fear".

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Probably, yes. But in this case they'd coincidentally reach the right conclusion anyway. Because as was said before, we don't actually have any indication that the OT (and even bits of the NT) intended to say anything else but "fear" when they used the word "fear".

It's interesting to compare translations, as I did earlier in post #223.

Incidentally, it's fascinating reading back through the thread. Pretty early on, in the first discussions about whether Abraham almost murdered his son because he feared God, I found this:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The OT talks about fearing god rather a lot, actually. It's practically an idiom.

Okay, I accept your counter. Argument withdrawn.

And yet, somehow the argument continues.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, sure, why not? The Greeks had six different words for love. We have just the one. It means just what you choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

Just getting back to the above.

I can't see why it follows that we can choose love to mean what we like, just because the Greeks had six different words for the emotion.

Incidentally we have words like affection, adoration, doting, pining, and such. Not to be outdone by the Greeks.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Just getting back to the above.

I can't see why it follows that we can choose love to mean what we like, just because the Greeks had six different words for the emotion.

Incidentally we have words like affection, adoration, doting, pining, and such. Not to be outdone by the Greeks.

I was using the Greeks to illustrate that what we mean by the word "love" can have different meanings. It was an example, not an argument.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I was using the Greeks to illustrate that what we mean by the word "love" can have different meanings. It was an example, not an argument.

You've lost me arth.

The Greeks have six different words to describe the same thing. So we have one word that describes many different things, is your logical deduction from this?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You've lost me arth.

The Greeks have six different words to describe the same thing. So we have one word that describes many different things, is your logical deduction from this?

No, the Greeks have six different words to describe different things. Things that we can use one word to describe.

Anyway, it's probably best not to focus too much on this extremely minor aside.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, the Greeks have six different words to describe different things. Things that we can use one word to describe.

Anyway, it's probably best not to focus too much on this extremely minor aside.

But we don't do we - love is very often used with a modifier - so we have romantic love, we have platonic love and so on. One of the Greek ones was "philia" which we would translate as "friendship", so there's another one like the greeks.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And yet, somehow the argument continues.

No. More accurately, 3 pages after supposedly retracting the argument, you're keeping going into it anyway:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So why not "fear"? Why can "fear" not also have more than one meaning?

I'm saying rather that the Bible uses the words "fear" and "love" so we are more or less free to give them different, perhaps subtle variations in meaning.

Seems to me like if you don't want the argument to continue, then don't continue it

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Darat

But we don't do we - love is very often used with a modifier - so we have romantic love, we have platonic love and so on. One of the Greek ones was "philia" which we would translate as "friendship", so there's another one like the greeks.

You seem to be agreeing with Arth. "Love" covers a number of things, so sometimes we have to use a modifier to more precisely describe the particular thing we're talking about.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

You seem to be agreeing with Arth. "Love" covers a number of things, so sometimes we have to use a modifier to more precisely describe the particular thing we're talking about.

But that's kinda the thing. Where it could be misunderstood, we apply a modifier if we don't find a better word to use. For example unless if you're going for a joke, a la Tom Lehrer, you wouldn't just say that Oedipus "loved his mother." You'd find a different word, or use a modifier, or write some context that clarifies it, or whatever.

Regardless of how many words you have for a thing, people seldom leave it as vague and unclear as to be unclear whether they really mean "fear" or just "respect" or whatever. Doubly so when it's supposed to be not just an author, who may possibly have been just crap at choosing his words, but some 40+ books by different authors and somehow all manage to not see a need to clarify the same word when they use different meanings of it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

You seem to be agreeing with Arth. "Love" covers a number of things, so sometimes we have to use a modifier to more precisely describe the particular thing we're talking about.

I see what you mean but we do have some words for their "love" words such as friendship, I think it is a cultural thing that we don't - at first thoughts - consider the word friendship as a synonym for love.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Darat

I see what you mean but we do have some words for their "love" words such as friendship, I think it is a cultural thing that we don't - at first thoughts - consider the word friendship as a synonym for love.

Reminds me of an incident in my teens when I discovered a female friend and I gave rather different meanings to the word "relationship", still causes my toes to curl some forty years later.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Reminds me of an incident in my teens when I discovered a female friend and I gave rather different meanings to the word "relationship", still causes my toes to curl some forty years later.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

No. More accurately, 3 pages after supposedly retracting the argument, you're keeping going into it anyway:

Seems to me like if you don't want the argument to continue, then don't continue it

I acknowledge that I had a role in the continuation of the argument. So did other people.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Regardless of how many words you have for a thing, people seldom leave it as vague and unclear as to be unclear whether they really mean "fear" or just "respect" or whatever. Doubly so when it's supposed to be not just an author, who may possibly have been just crap at choosing his words, but some 40+ books by different authors and somehow all manage to not see a need to clarify the same word when they use different meanings of it.

Authors, translators, translators of translations, etc.

The Bible is not known to be a bastion of clarity and unambiguity.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, the Greeks have six different words to describe different things. Things that we can use one word to describe.

Anyway, it's probably best not to focus too much on this extremely minor aside.

Minor aside? I don't think so.

The issue is, that I was illustrating the dubious claim to morality of Christianity when is is fear, that is the motivating factor, in keeping them on the straight and narrow - so to speak.

You you then brought into question, the meaning of the word when written in the Bible, and perhaps used by the faithful. Myself, and others here are just suggesting that this word and other examples meaning is clear.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Minor aside? I don't think so.

The issue is, that I was illustrating the dubious claim to morality of Christianity when is is fear, that is the motivating factor, in keeping them on the straight and narrow - so to speak.

You you then brought into question, the meaning of the word when written in the Bible, and perhaps used by the faithful. Myself, and others here are just suggesting that this word and other examples meaning is clear.

If so, then it would be the only thing in the Bible that is clear.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Authors, translators, translators of translations, etc.

The Bible is not known to be a bastion of clarity and unambiguity.

Maybe, but I'm still confused as to why that's even still an issue, when, as shown before, it becomes very clear when you actually go to the actual primary source instead of taking guesses as to whether the translation missed something or not. Same as for any other source, really, historical or relatively contemporary. Like, if I'm confused about what some word REALLY means in War and Peace, or even in something as recent as the RA3 Soviet March, I can find someone who speaks Russian and ask. That should clear up whether the translation was accurate or not, innit?

So I'm sure you're trying to tell me something there, but, as I was saying, so far I'm just confused. Maybe you could elaborate?

[arthwollipot]

It's basically this, again.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

I've long since lost any emotional attachment to whatever other arguments I might have been making. Words can mean different things. Interpret them how you like.

[Apathia]

D. "Hey! Christain! Your Bible tells you you ought to "fear" God. That means you should be in abject terror of your deity. That's what it teaches. Also, you believe because you're afraid!"

B. "Uh, that's not how most of us take that. "Fear" mostly means "reverence" "awe," and recognition of God's power. Oh, sure there can be some who quake in their boots and only do good for fear of damnation, but that's not the grace we speak of."

D. "Stop cherry picking. The Bible says "Fear." Fear means what it says. Be afraid! be very afraid!"

B. "Why is it so crucial that you paint my theistic belief in the most insulting and belittling ways?

Great, I get it. You want evidence. We can argue over what kinds of evidence may be satisfactory for me, but not you.
But please don't misrepresent me and us by rushing to literalistic interpretations as if you and I were fundamentalists.

And please take some time to understand what "Faith" means to us, rather than jumping on that one verse about it being "evidence of things not seen" and turning it into a canard. That's not the whole of it for an educated, mature Christian."

[Be aware. I'm not a Christian. I was one in my youth. And as a Christian (and of Christians I still communicate with) I was not "mentally ill," "mentally challenged," groveling in abject fear before God, or being a kind person because I was afraid of Hell.]

D. "Well, you just believed what you were told."

Nope!

[8enotto]

God's power is as great as each believer gives it to him.
To one he is capable of anything imaginable and well beyond. Also likely to act at random.

To another god is a silly notion the weak lean upon to solve personal issues.

We give him power, we take it away.

[Delvo]

I don't care whether fear is the driver of modern Christian theology or not, so I wouldn't try to convince them that it is.

But I would like them to at least admit that that's the basis, the original version, which the modern version came from.

But I also don't know how to get them to face that fact. If they want to insist not only on pretending it means something other than what it says for themselves, but also that the authors who originally chose the words didn't mean what they wrote either, then the word choice alone is not the way to go. And pointing to modern preachers blathering on & on about how they think the whole world is out to get them for being Christian, or to studies showing that getting people to think scary thoughts primes them to take more conservative political & social positions, is not the way to go either, because any individual in modern times can just dismiss either of them as applying to some other Christian or pseudo-Christian church out there, not their own, not the "real" one(s). And the former can also be dismissed on the basis "But the whole world really is out to get us! It says so right here in the totally-not-fear-inspired Bible!".

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's basically this, again.

I've long since lost any emotional attachment to whatever other arguments I might have been making. Words can mean different things. Interpret them how you like.

It's useful to note though that that was mostly satire in Lewis Carrol's case, rather than actually saying you can up and use a word to mean any unrelated thing. In fact, the whole book seems to mirror his gripe with the new (-ish for his time) mathematics that reused old terms to mean whatever they wanted to mean.

Additionally, Humpy Dumpty isn't exactly depicted as a wise (or really almost anything else positive) character. He's rude, patronizing and self-important. He pretty much starts the conversation by picking on Alice's name ("It's a stupid name enough!") and praising his own looks ("a good handsome shape it is"). And from there he basically just spouts increasingly pretentious nonsense, uses nonsense made up words like "unbirthday" (literally any day that isn't his birthday), and so on. The quote you mentioned is his defense when basically it becomes clear that he's just a pretentious twit, using words he doesn't understand and make no sense in context.

There are things to ponder about that chapter, if you're philosophically inclined and bored enough, but... let's just say... I wouldn't take Humpty Dumpty as an authority or someone to emulate.

Short version: it's actually more of an example of the Delusions Of Eloquence trope. It's not something you're supposed to emulate

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's useful to note though that that was mostly satire in Lewis Carrol's case, rather than actually saying you can up and use a word to mean any unrelated thing. In fact, the whole book seems to mirror his gripe with the new (-ish for his time) mathematics that reused old terms to mean whatever they wanted to mean.

Additionally, Humpy Dumpty isn't exactly depicted as a wise (or really almost anything else positive) character. He's rude, patronizing and self-important. He pretty much starts the conversation by picking on Alice's name ("It's a stupid name enough!") and praising his own looks ("a good handsome shape it is"). And from there he basically just spouts increasingly pretentious nonsense, uses nonsense made up words like "unbirthday" (literally any day that isn't his birthday), and so on. The quote you mentioned is his defense when basically it becomes clear that he's just a pretentious twit, using words he doesn't understand and make no sense in context.

People should be more careful when they quote fictional characters as if they were speaking with the voice of the author.

One example of this that always stuck with me was from Wayne Dyer's self-help book Your Erroneous Zones. In a section where he encourages readers to let themselves off the hook for past mistakes and not let others guilt them over them. He quotes "Shakespeare" as saying: "What is without remedy should be without regard. What's done is done."

Dyer neglects to mention that this gnomic tidbit of "Shakespearean" wisdom is a line spoken by LADY ******* MACBETH.

ETA: Sorry, I shouldn't have written that last bit. I meant LADY ******* SCOTTISH PLAY.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

People should be more careful when they quote fictional characters as if they were speaking with the voice of the author.

Basically, yes.

And yeah, especially Shakespeare gets the most abused there. There are also quotes like "discretion is the better part of valour" which is spoken by Falstaff, a rather dishonourable character. It's more like someone lacking valour finding an excuse. Or "Brevity is the soul of wit", spoken by a character portrayed as lather lacking in wit.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

There are things to ponder about that chapter, if you're philosophically inclined and bored enough, but... let's just say... I wouldn't take Humpty Dumpty as an authority or someone to emulate.

Now you're getting it.

[The Great Zaganza]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13813924

more widespread sexual abuse by those who are supposed to be the good guys in any moral discussion ...

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Now you're getting it.

Nope, still not getting what you're trying to say.