You have to have intelligence to be this stupid

Fuzzy

It's just that without God, morals are subjective; they're no more important than the type of music you listen to. Without God, we can't criticize others for being immoral; we can't criticize Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Jack the Ripper. Without God, life is as meaningless as the action figures children play with. Without God, we're meaningless molecules that just so happened to come together and be intelligent

You know I was thinking about that last night whilst I was sleeping.

I wondered to myself... if it is just a happenstance that we are here why be moral? Not saying people who don't have no way to be moral...

I actually came to a conclusion but I don't remember what it was.

Why is life meaningless without God? It really comes down to an individual's perception of a good life, and what they do to benefit others in the time they have. You don't have to accept the concept of a God to have meaning in your life, it's just that without God you have more choice over what form that meaning takes. You're not restricted to the 'To Do' list of some unknown entity.

I also don't understand why we're not allowed to criticize the immorality of others if we don't believe in God. Surely the very fact that such a person can differentiate between right and wrong, moral and immoral, disproves the entire theory anyway. If, as has been suggested, a person who refuses to accept God into their life has no concept of morals, then surely they would just be a wild, uncontrolled force who did whatever they felt like doing when the whim took them.

I think there's a great deal of arrogance amongst Christians, and followers of other faiths, that those who do not follow their beliefs are somehow inferior to them. That in itself goes a long way to prove which side has the better morals.

Well, i'm sure to somebody who believes in God, that life is unimaginable and would appear meaningless without God. I can see that.

Just thinking about life without computers personnally makes me freak out.

@ paxx

grayhaze,

As a believer, I am in complete agreement with you.

I think that part of the problem comes about because of real differences in believing that God exists and the interpretations of the religious dogmas created to address and/or understand that belief.

My belief in God is pretty much the *only* matter of faith in my life (I have reasons for that faith that are too involved to detail here), but I'm a scientist and sceptic where just about everything else is concerned.

I am especially a sceptic when it comes to someone else telling me what God wants, or in what manner I'm supposed to honor/obey/revere Him. No one really *knows* what it is that God wants of us (if anything). People *believe* in various interpretations, and that's fine (far be it from me to tell someone what they should believe). The thing is that all of these interpretations have been written by, handled by, edited by, and interpreted by human beings (even if the original was divinely inspired or driven, the subsequent changes by others can only water down the original meaning). The only point where I have some dissonance about following such interpretations is in the cases where some people appear to hold them even over God Himself.

As valuable as some of these texts may be as a guide, ultimately, God is more important than all of these texts.

As for morals, good basic moral values can be instilled by those of pretty much any belief system (I exclude for the sake of argument those that are psychotic). Alternatively, those of any belief system can choose to subvert those values for various reasons (usually power or personal gain)
[Message Edited]

No one really *knows* what it is that God wants of us (if anything).

that's an amusing assertion.

the subsequent changes by others can only water down the original meaning

you're telling us that if a highly qualified group of scholars looks at any translated document ( and its peers and antecedents), they can only muddy it up - that it is impossible that they would render it better translated and more concise no matter what their qualifications were.

that is another humorous assertion.

This is one of those questions that will be with mankind for all time. Personally, I believe in a higher being, call it God, Yahwah, Allah, whatever. I can not look out at the sky at night, drive through the mountains, gaze upon the plains, and not feel humbled that all this was not created for a purpose. What that purpose is, I do not know. What I believe is that something that I can not comprehend, that religions of the worlds try to answer in a human way, created all. Some survived, some did not, but all at some time in the scheme of things had a starting point. The rest, I believe, (call it Gods will), was left up to us. To evolve, to survive, or to perish.

Here's an interesting read Bangkokboy... or should I say amusing?

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp

you're telling us that if a highly qualified group of scholars looks at any translated document ( and its peers and antecedents), they can only muddy it up - that it is impossible that they would render it better translated and more concise no matter what their qualifications were.

Yep, pretty much.

I'm not necessarily arguing that every scholar that has examined or edited the text is unqualified (although I *would* argue that quite a few of them were not really qualified). The primary point is that many of the translations, selections, and edits were done by people with a specific agenda, and consciously or not, they chose and/or translated based on that mindset.

A *LOT* of the decisions made in the compilation, translation, etc. of the works of the past were chosen with the full intent of promoting the specific viewpoint of the compiler (or whoever it was who sponsored them).

My scepticism is not the result of thinking that the underlying text is meaningless. It is the result of knowing *for a fact* that there were humans involved in the process, that these humans had various personal and political reasons for being involved in the process, and in what the outcome of that process would be.

There is the old Latin phrase, 'Traditore, tradutore' (the translator is a traitor). A translator *cannot*, by definition, improve on what they're translating. They cannot be in the mind of the original author, they are in a different social and political context. And that's the best position they can be in. It gets worse if they aren't conversationally fluent in the language they're translating from, if there's a great deal of time (and changes) between the translator and the translated.

My primary position is that I will not tie my faith in God to what is ultimately the agenda of another human being. Where my faith coincides with the text or history, I will accept it, where it does not, I will either not accept it, or I will at least place the burden of proof on those who promote the assertion in the text. Where the text is clearly contradictory to established fact, I will eschew the text.

This is one of those questions that will be with mankind for all time.

I would hope not. I believe somewhere down the line we'll have amassed enough knowledge to be able to know the absolute truth. Then, one way or another, everyone will have to accept things for the way they are.

grayhaze also put a smile on my face. good-natured, i assure you.

as to whether newer translations are better:

Hosea, speaking of his horribly unfaithful wife: "nachalah tsibuaah ayeet!" ( beloved/hyena/vulture )

translated in the early English translations: "My beloved is like a speckled bird". ( what in the world does that mean?)

translated in the late 20th century by more knowledgable scholars:
"My beloved [is] a hyena! A vulture!!"

many older and decidedly more reliable texts than the septuagint and masoretic text have become available thru increased archeological cooperation and cross-faith openness in recent decades, leading to renewed interest in the translations.

these humans had various personal and political reasons for being involved in the process, and in what the outcome of that process would be

quite right! yet in a few cases that "agenda" was to use the newest and best knowledge available and actually produce a more accurate and faithful translation. the trick is to find the workmanship of those who revered accuracy and had little use for political considerations. not an easy task, and many of the websites out there that will give you "insight" into the nature of the various english translations are themselves so riddled with hidden political agenda that they are useless and very obvious.

There will be "white smoke" pouring out at the Vatican soon! I saw JP today on tv, I swear I thought he was dead

This is a very popular subject....always and forever...faith and facts(human's facts). What we discuss here wont change neither faith nor facts. Faith will stay as faith and facts will stay as facts. Because they are faith and facts , sorry maybe im too young to understand why everyone is discussing about it, forgive me please.

Bangkokboy,

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Part of the problem with translations is (much like you mention) that many words can have quite a few meanings, even in their own tongue. When the translator plies his trade, he may or may not select the best word to transmit the original meaning. Additionally, some translations, even if as accurate as possible, can contain phrases that are archaic and have no reference that the current reader can understand. As a result, some translators attempt to convey what they think is the best fit to current understanding (which can be an ongoing process). Often, the original feeling behind the phrase is lost (or altered).

Also, the declared accuracy of a text is pretty much just that, declared to be so by a scholar or some other interested party. This isn't to say that they're wrong, but it is important to realize the limitations on being able to determine the degree of accuracy. An awful lot of the texts are written versions of oral history and events. Those oral versions often spanned generations. There's a pretty good chance that some of those oral stories have changed a bit over the telling, no matter how careful the tellers were. It's only necessary to consider the old school game of sitting in a circle, having one person make a statement to the next, and so on down the chain, with the resulting phrase often much different from the starting one. I will admit that oral histories were kept in higher regard, and there was a good degree of tradition and repetition to reinforce the story, but the nature of human memory and the process of recitation will cause some differences after a while.

Even if we allow that the transcription of oral history to written history was accomplished without mistake, and if the chain of translation was undertaken with the greatest regard for accuracy and closest meaning, we're still left with the fact that the determination of which texts to include in a canon, and which to exclude, were still decided by humans. And even if we further accept that these humans had the greatest regard for the task, there is still the fact that not all of the canonical commitees had all of the texts with which to make their decisions. And even if we allow that they did have full posession of all texts, there remains the fact that different commitees included or excluded different texts.

In various forms and canons, there are the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, as well as the various non-canonical coptic documents from Nag Hamadi, and so forth.

Various sects have their preferred canon, with a particular translation given as definitive, and particular texts either included or not. One of the more obvious examples of this difference is the protestant and catholic bibles, with many differences, the most notable being the presence of the apocrypa in the catholic bible.

Given all of the above, and given the fact that humans aren't perfect (even at their best), and given that even within the ranks of Christianity as a whole there are differences in translation and interpretation and inclusion (just as an example, not to mention the myriad other views), it's pretty clear that no one can meaningfully lay claim to the unvarnished truth.

I have available to me quite a few of the biblical translations, including KJV, the Peshitta (Syriac Aramaic translation), selected chapters of the septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. It's interesting to read these side by side and note the differences (and similarities).

You've mentioned that I challenge the scholars, and I fully admit to that. The scholars themselves challenge each other, as well as those who have gone before. When one selects an interpretation they prefer, they are also implicitly selecting the particular scholarly tradition that reinforces their selection.

I freely admit that there is value in the texts, both in the form of history and in allegorical teachings intended to demonstrate preferred character traits with that social context. What I *cannot* do is treat any such text as the complete and literal truth. If it truly was complete and inerrant, then it would stand to reason that it would be clearly so, and there would be little or no room for various interpretations. The fact that so many within the various sects disagree as to what is and isn't correct in translation, what should or should not be included, and so on (and this includes the scholars and experts), indicates that the real truth is anything but obvious or clearly defined.

The world of faith is filled with Christians (catholics, baptists, calvinists, methodists, etc.), Jews (hasidic, samaritan, etc.), Moslems (sunni, shiite, etc.), and so forth, all convinced beyond argument that their particular viewpoint is the sole unalterable truth, and each viewpoint different from all the others in one degree or another. Not to mention that many of the above sects all trace their history back to the same basic texts and sources (to greater or lesser distances in time), which goes back to interpretation again.

I've posted this before in this thread, but I think it's relevant in this context:

"Do not say 'I have found the one true path of Spirit,' but rather say,
'I have found Spirit walking on my path,' for Spirit walks on all paths. --Khalil Gibran--

I think the biggest problem for creationist is The Holy Bible itself.
That old Book persists in saying things that the creationists, who claim to take it as literal truth, have to admit are metaphorical (like the "doors" in the firmament that let the rain through). That means, of course, that they have to arbitrarily decide which parts are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal (and can't they twist the English language!). I've never yet read a justification for who gets to make that determination and how, so I'll summarize it thus: Everything is literal except things that even we creationists can't stomach.
Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria--or even the heliocentric solar system!

Still doubt that creationists hate the Bible? Ask several if they've ever read it--all the way through, cover-to-cover. 97% of the time the answer will be no. They're sure every word is literally true, and the divine message of God, but somehow they've never quite found the time to actually read the thing. Is this irony thick enough yet?

This is seriously a bad topic to start but reasonable. It's just one of those battles you try not to start.

But on to my comment...

I believe in both Creation and Evolution
Time to define:

cre·a·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-shn) n. 1) a)The act of creating. b)The fact or state of having been created. 2)The act of investing with a new office or title. 3) a)The world and all things in it. b)All creatures or a class of creatures. 4)Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence. 5)An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.

ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-) n. 1)A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. 2) a)The process of developing. b)Gradual development. 3)Biology. a)Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b)The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 4)A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements. 5)Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

If you take in consideration [Creation 1:b] Anything here had to be created by something or somebody. If it wasn't, then it cannot be. This is where God comes into play. We don't know what created the earth or what is on earth or even the other planets, so we have to fill in that question with something. So, God was created. 1 word to explain ALL.

Now to the Evolution part, we will look at [Evolution 2:a&b] We do this now. Look at present day and you will have this happening all the time. Ok, that doesn't go with what you are mainly looking for. You want something that deals with [Evolution 3:a&b] This could be possible. In Today's time, we see mutations. Maybe mutations had interactions with others. Maybe it was chemically induced somehow. We don't know because it was so long ago.

This brings us to a new subject of the matter. (TIME) They say that evolution can't happen because the planet wasn't here long enough for this to happen. It would take much more time to happen. Who said that it had to happen here, maybe the movies captured a different idea. Maybe we did come from another planet. Anything is possible.

This is just a brief pulling apart of some ideas. But we basically don't have proof of any way. Evolution or Creation. Even if there is a God and :It: shows itself like the Bible says will happen. This still won't prove that we were just automatically created the way we are.

In Conclusion. I believe that we were created by a being greater then us or maybe more advance then us. But there has to be a start of something. Then we evolved from there to what we are now and we will continue to evolve to be more powerful to proceed to the next level. Remember, the weak usually die off and the stronger survive so life can live on.

I'm sorry this is long. I checked to see if we already covered this topic on my messageboard for my old site but we didn't go far on it so I won't post the link. But you asked, I gave my opinion.

~Weaksid~

592 replies and I didn't read most of them. I think that is just too many to read from the start. I might skim through them. I did read the first couple though. But I still gave my thought

I've never really considered whether this is a 'bad' or 'good' topic to discuss. It's just a theological discussion. Nobody's wrong, everybody's right.

One other thought........why is it that in all of created life, mankind is the only life that does not have a natural predator other than himself?

Mankind doesn't have a natural predator?

Lions... tigers... sharks... hamsters... to name a few.

but....those are not mankinds natural predators. All other species have a natural predator that controls, as an example, its population. Mankind does not.

Yea, we wouldn't have a population control if we did