Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[HannahBanana]

ROFL!!!
Jealousy and envy are two very different things. Everyone uses 'jealous' wrong, you can't be jealous of someone else's stuff.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the synonyms of "envy" are:

Entry Word: envy
Function: noun
Meaning: a painful awareness of another&#700;s possessions or advantages and a desire to have them too <her envy of her neighbor&#700;s fancy clothes wrecked their friendship>
Synonyms covetousness, enviousness, invidiousness, jealousy, resentment

Please note that "jealousy" is, in fact, one of the synonyms of "envy." So you're absolutely wrong in saying that "jealousy" and "envy" mean different things.

 

[david_x]

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the synonyms of "envy" are:

Please note that "jealousy" is, in fact, one of the synonyms of "envy." So you're absolutely wrong in saying that "jealousy" and "envy" mean different things.

It's used as a synonym, but it's not. Also it has a very different meaning, lul.

 

[HannahBanana]

It's used as a synonym, but it's not. Also it has a very different meaning, lul.

Are you majoring in English, and/or have you taken 4 years' worth of English classes in college? If not, then you most likely do not know nearly as much about the English language as I do, and you most certainly do not know enough about the English language in order to say that one of the foremost dictionary/thesaurus publishers in the world (that being Merriam-Webster, of course) is wrong in saying that "jealousy" is a synonym for "envy." Nice try, though.

 

[david_x]

Are you majoring in English, and/or have you taken 4 years' worth of English classes in college? If not, then you most likely do not know nearly as much about the English language as I do, and you most certainly do not know enough about the English language in order to say that one of the foremost dictionary/thesaurus publishers in the world (that being Merriam-Webster, of course) is wrong in saying that "jealousy" is a synonym for "envy." Nice try, though.

I'm not denying that they can be used as synonyms. I just said they have different meanings!

Dictionary.com defines them as synonyms: 1. enviousness. Envy and jealousy are very close in meaning. Envy denotes a longing to possess something awarded to or achieved by another: to feel envy when a friend inherits a fortune. Jealousy, on the other hand, denotes a feeling of resentment that another has gained something that one more rightfully deserves: to feel jealousy when a coworker receives a promotion. Jealousy also refers to anguish caused by fear of unfaithfulness.

 

[HannahBanana]

I'm not denying that they can be used as synonyms. I just said they have different meanings!

Dictionary.com defines them as synonyms: 1. enviousness. Envy and jealousy are very close in meaning. Envy denotes a longing to possess something awarded to or achieved by another: to feel envy when a friend inherits a fortune. Jealousy, on the other hand, denotes a feeling of resentment that another has gained something that one more rightfully deserves: to feel jealousy when a coworker receives a promotion. Jealousy also refers to anguish caused by fear of unfaithfulness.

Let's look at the definition of the word "synonym":

Main Entry: syn·o·nym
Pronunciation: \&#712;si-n&#601;-&#716;nim\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek syn&#333;nymon, from neuter of syn&#333;nymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name — more at name
Date: 15th century
1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

So, for the last time, yes, jealousy and envy do mean the same thing. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again, so I would appreciate it if you would stop refusing to see what I'm saying.

 

[david_x]

Let's look at the definition of the word "synonym":


So, for the last time, yes, jealousy and envy do mean the same thing. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again, so I would appreciate it if you would stop refusing to see what I'm saying.

They have "nearly the same meaning" well that's what I was saying. Plus the way they're used can make them have very different meanings.

CORRECT: Sam is jealous of his children. (i.e. He is afraid his children would love another.)
Insert "synonym"
NOT: Sam envies his children.(i.e. he wants what his kids have.)

 

[HannahBanana]

They have "nearly the same meaning" well that's what I was saying. Plus the way they're used can make them have very different meanings.

CORRECT: Sam is jealous of his children. (i.e. He is afraid his children would love another.)
Insert "synonym"
NOT: Sam envies his children.(i.e. he wants what his kids have.)

That's not what "jealous" means at all. It doesn't mean that one is afraid their children would love another person. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, it means:

Main Entry: jeal·ous
Pronunciation: \&#712;je-l&#601;s\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English jelous, from Anglo-French gelus, from Vulgar Latin *zelosus, from Late Latin zelus zeal &#8212; more at zeal
Date: 13th century
1 a : intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness b : disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness

and, just for good measure, this is the definition of "envy":

Main Entry: 1en·vy
Pronunciation: \&#712;en-v&#275;\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural envies
Etymology: Middle English envie, from Anglo-French, from Latin invidia, from invidus envious, from invid&#275;re to look askance at, envy, from in- + vid&#275;re to see &#8212; more at wit
Date: 13th century
1 : painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage

So, in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[david_x]

That's not what "jealous" means at all. It doesn't mean that one is afraid their children would love another person. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, it means:



and, just for good measure, this is the definition of "envy":



So, in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Umm, that definition backed me up actually...

 

[JediMobius]

Huh. Never read that verse before. Thanks.

I do what I can.

First of all, "jealousy" and "envy" are synonyms, so it makes no sense for you to say that it's okay for God to be jealous but not envious.

Second of all, isn't jealousy a sin? So are you admitting that God is sinful, since he's jealous?

So you didn't bother checking out the definition I referred to. . .

3. vigilance in maintaining or guarding something.
​

This is the context that God's jealousy is always in. Don't you know that language changes over time? Jealousy and envy were not always synonyms. I know this because throughout the King James version of the Bible, jealous(y) is always in the context of marriage, except for once in the Song of Solomon (which particular context I don't fully understand). Usually, it was God's rightful anger over the people of Israel (who were spiritually married to God) committing spiritual adultery with other gods (gods that didn't even have any power). The rest of the instances are of a husband jealous over his wife's adultery, and rightly so.

Neither of these describe envy, so at least within the pages of the bible, jealousy and envy are not synonymous. And apparently, contemporary English has just abandoned the sense of the word without giving the definition to a new word.

So no, jealousy, in the biblical sense, is not a sin because it is not envy, and there is no verse or passage which says jealousy is a sin.

Third of all, couldn't God just destroy Satan if he really wanted to? After all, he created Satan, so he should be able to destroy him, too. So why, then, does God choose not to destroy Satan?

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
​

God will punish Satan, keeping him away for ever, but in His own time.

 

[JediMobius]

Are you majoring in English, and/or have you taken 4 years' worth of English classes in college? If not, then you most likely do not know nearly as much about the English language as I do, and you most certainly do not know enough about the English language in order to say that one of the foremost dictionary/thesaurus publishers in the world (that being Merriam-Webster, of course) is wrong in saying that "jealousy" is a synonym for "envy." Nice try, though.

Now I'm disappointed! As an English major, weren't you interested in the etymology of the word? Online Etymology Dictionary shows that the original use of the word was closer to zeal and actually in contrast to envy.

It seems the dictionaries are wrong on this word, probably as a result of colloquialism. Jealousy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia defines Jealousy as "insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as a relationship, friendship, or love." The article later describes jealousy as "a paradox [that] may outlast the attachment which it fears losing".

 

[tanzanos]

I have conversed with God, and Christian are basically the ambassadors of Christ. It's not that I'm in on God's decision making process. I read the bible. Much of what I've said is right in the context, some of it is extrapolated from what I know of God's character.

You are taking the lord's name in vain and are bearing false witness. "extrapolated from what I know of God's character"
Were you to be living in a theocratic state ; you will surely have been executed for blasphemy!

Neocons sheesh

 

[JediMobius]

You are taking the lord's name in vain and are bearing false witness. "extrapolated from what I know of God's character"
Were you to be living in a theocratic state ; you will surely have been executed for blasphemy!

Yes, how dare I understand the bible! God and the church would surely take offense! *sarcasm* Congratulations, you've made a non-argument. You obviously don't know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

Neocons sheesh

1) What does a political philosophy have to do with anything?
2) I don't believe in forcing democracy on other countries, I'm not comfortable with a welfare state, and I didn't even vote for Bush. If you're going to stereotype me, at least get in the same ball park.
3) Unless I'm mistaken, 'Neocon' has a rather negative connotation. Leave the personal attacks out of it and address the argument as per site rules.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Yes, how dare I understand the bible! God and the church would surely take offense! *sarcasm* Congratulations, you've made a non-argument. You obviously don't know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

Everybody understands the Bible. And everybody with a different interpretation than the next is wrong.

 

[JediMobius]

Everybody understands the Bible. And everybody with a different interpretation than the next is wrong.

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

My point is that everybody has a different interpretation of the Bible. My post is very relevant because in the post quoted by the one you were responding to, you "extrapolated" from what you know about G-d. You gather what you "know" from your interpretation of the Bible, which is not the same as everybody else's.

I was not actually insisting that everybody understands the true meaning of the Bible (if there even is one), which I indicated with the second sentence of my post.

 

[HannahBanana]

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

Do you or don't you agree that texts such as Homer's The Odyssey, Dante's The Inferno, and Beowulf can all be interpreted in several different ways, depending on who's reading them, why they're being read (such as if they're being read for a class assignment versus if they're being read for enjoyment), and how they are translated? If you do agree with that, then do you not agree that, since the Bible is just as much of a literary work as those three works are, it's capable of being interpreted in more than one way, just like those three works are? I mean, why should the Bible be an exception to the rule? Every single other literary work is capable of being interpreted in more than one way, so why do you seem to think the Bible isn't capable of that as well?

 

[Mling]

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

well, gee...I'll have to return to the Christian college I went to and tell my professor that that whole class he did--where he talked about the view of the Bible as a puzzle that just needs to be fit together correctly, vs EVERY OTHER VIEW OUT THERE is a pointless class. All real Christians know that the puzzle view is the only right one, so clearly, most of the faculty in the Christian college are not Christians. This guy on the internet says so.

 

[david_x]

well, gee...I'll have to return to the Christian college I went to and tell my professor that that whole class he did--where he talked about the view of the Bible as a puzzle that just needs to be fit together correctly, vs EVERY OTHER VIEW OUT THERE is a pointless class. All real Christians know that the puzzle view is the only right one, so clearly, most of the faculty in the Christian college are not Christians. This guy on the internet says so.

But there are things that are finite. Trinity, not three Gods or just one, three in one.


(Otherwise Arianism would be a part of Christendom.)

 

[sandwiches]

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

To say that if everyone understood the Bible, everyone would believe in God is to assert that those who don't believe in it don't understand it. How can we objectively verify if your assertion is truer than saying "If everyone understood the Qur'an, everyone would believe it" or "If everyone understood the Bible, no one would believe it?"

 

[tanzanos]

(Not that your argument has anything to do with the context of any previous post...) If everyone understood the bible, everyone would come to faith in God. Christians know there should be one interpretation by rightly dividing the word. That's why we try so hard to share sound doctrine.

I understand both the Bible and the Quran. This does not mean I have to believe in it too.

Have a nice day

Neocons