"you have problems following multiple lines of thought",

I stand by that one.  You keep mis-matching your comments.

""Good job! I didn't have to even pull you into asking that question. You did it yourself!",

Yea, ok.  That one was patronizing.  :)

"Would you like to move into the realm of actual statistics? Go ahead. I dare ya"

That's not patronizing at all.  I'm calling you out, which is a perfectly fine thing to do.  If you want to go toe to toe using actual statistics I'll be more than happy to do so.  I was clearly employing a rhetorical device, especially given that we don't have reliable statistics on the point back to the start of human civilization.    You rebutted with the number of 15%.  Is that not a mere assertion?  Are you countering a rhetorical device with another rhetorical device?

"Anyway what did you mean by "You realize that a significant chunk of humans embraced your POV and tried to actually implement it on a large scale? Any idea how that went?" ?"

A significant chunk of humans decided to try living as though they were superior to all them dum religious folks out there and dismissed 'unhealthy, psychologically crippling bull**t.'  They put it into practice.

Lol.  I asked my daughter once...never mind.  I'll share that story some other time.  I see some interesting developements.

Really, what would it take to see some obedience to forum rules, here?????

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=174

Stathei --

SntJohnny, I apologize for breaking the forum rule on the h-word, but I believe that the rule is only there because you, alone, personally don't like that word. The rest of us find it very awkward to say what we are trying to say about h*** when we have to say Hades or some other ridiculous euphemism instead of the word we actually want to say. I know it's your forum and you can cry if you want to, but I think it is an unreasonable restriction on those who wish to use the word based on the preferences of a single individual. I'll stop using it if you insist, but I'm not going back to edit my posts.

You've missed the point of the thread.  Let me refer you to my rather concise explanation what the forum rule against hell is all about (cut and pasted from that thread):

SJ's point is that the English word "hell" in some translations is used to cover a variety of different concepts represented by different words in the original languages. SJ is not prohibiting discussion of the concept of "hell" but is asking for specificity as to which of the concepts sometimes associated with that word is actually being talked about.

Cimics, I fully stand by what I said in the last thread. Most of us are happy with the use of the h-word and it is ridiculous to ban it. By StJohnny's and your logic, the word "God" should also be banned and we should have to specify "Jehovah", "Allah", "Zeus", "Thor", "Elvis", etc.

Heretic, please feel free to join in - it's never too late  :o !!

Really, what would it take to see some obedience to forum rules, here?????

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=174

SJ, you never answered this question from that thread:

johnny, if you dont want us to use this word even when we are talking about it in a reverent way, then which of the substitutions do you want us to use? Please provide definitions.

Cimics, I fully stand by what I said in the last thread. Most of us are happy with the use of the h-word and it is ridiculous to ban it. By StJohnny's and your logic, the word "God" should also be banned and we should have to specify "Jehovah", "Allah", "Zeus", "Thor", "Elvis", etc.

Then you still don't get it.  The KJV uses the term "hell" to describe at least three different concepts that are described in the original language with different words.  The point was to get you to describe which of those concepts you are referring to in a discussion.  "Hell" is not a good generic descriptor of the three concepts which are not mutually exclusive but are distinct.  Hey, I don't have a problem with you using the word, but it would be helpful if you explain which of the three concepts you mean or whether you are talking about something else entirely.  Or if you don't know, then to say so and go from there.

"God", on the other hand, is a good generic descriptor of Jehovah and Allah and perhaps some others, that are either different names of the same thing, or mutually exclusive alternatives of the basic idea.  Although you reference "Zeus" and "Thor", those are not covered by the description "God" but by "god", a generic descriptor of any deity.  And even then, using "God" or "god" as a concept only works if the context warrants a generic reference rather than a more specific one.  

The forum rule against using "hell" is meant to encourage clear talk rather than ban a word per se.  Use of the generic "hell" is rarely clear in the context in which it is discussed.

Very good replies, Cimics.

About 'Hades' and 'hell.'

Its not that I am banning the word 'hell' by any means.  For example, if everyone in the particular discussion has agreed to mean a specific thing by the word- or any word for that matter-  then it really doesn't matter one way or the other.  

The problem Stathei, is that you were asking a question employing a word sloppily covering a number of concepts.  I'm not saying that YOU were doing the slopping.  This slopping has been done by translators themselves.  I took a leap of faith in guessing exactly what concept you meant by the word, but to continue talking about it without being crystal clear is only going to create more trouble down the road.

I think this problem is illustrated marveously by this view:

"but I believe that the rule is only there because you, alone, personally don't like that word."

That belief is patently false.  The Scriptures make precise use of the different words in the original languages.  I only 'don't like the word' because it leads to confusion in the end, and when we are talking with someone like you, for example, that confusion is right around the corner.  Next thing we'll know, we'll be talking about the subject and you will run to the scriptures to try to prove your point from them and find a passage translated 'hell,' but actually written as 'hades' and ignore the fact that the point in question is a passage (still translated 'hell') that uses 'gehenna.'

At that time, when it is pointed out that the passage you are using doesn't support your point, you will likely cry foul.  However, if you examine the issue in advance we can eliminate that game from the beginning.

I suspect you will feel patronized to if I just leave it at 'a person like you.'  So allow me to clarify how I see you.  You seem to be a person acquainted with the bare terminology of Christianity and a spattering of the concepts.  It would not surprise me to learn that you attended confirmation classes somewhere, or even that you went to a Christian school.  It is evident that you have never dug deeply into the foundations of Christianity, however, to understand what educated Christians mean when they talk to each other.  Its only being respectful to recognize this, and either be humbly receptive to correction when it is offered (instead of trying to make it sound as though your question was being avoided) or take the time to do some digging in yourself so that you'll be more confident that you will be correctly interpreted when you use the words.  Its nothing different then you might do, if for example, you wanted to ask an orthodontist about his practice and procedures.

The 'forum rule' was actually implemented because of a number of end time discussions AMONG CHRISTIANS where there was intense equivocation going on.  You can go on using the word 'hell' all you like.  But don't get upset when people (like I did in this thread) refuse to accept the terms of your statement.   Its more "When did you stop beating your wife" stuff.

Uh, Cimics already spoke to that.