Atheism

[Klast Brell]

I see parallels with the suicide discussion in the other thread.

As to the atheist view on this (or at least this atheist's view. I can't claim to speak for others) the question of "why does anything matter?" is one that inevitably comes up. "Why bother?" "What's the point?" Because it's fun. Call me a hedonist if you like, but that's a damn good answer to to life's ultimate questions. Yes. on the grand scale of the universe we are specks of dust that last a blink of an eye. Yes. On the grand scale our actions will leave only a small mark that will quickly fade away. Billions upon billions of people have lived and died without meriting a single sentence in the history books. The houses they built have eroded to nothing and there is no evidence they ever existed.

Why bother if it all means nothing in the end? Because it's fun. Why bother when it's not fun? Because of the anticipation of future happiness. I don't like having a to work 40 hours a week, but I like the paycheck. As long as there is some expectation of happiness there is a reason to live. But if there is no expectation of happiness then why prolong the misery?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Good post. I'm not sure it matters what a person's answers to those questions are as long as they have them. It may be a good debate, but as Partha(?) pointed out at the beginning of this thread, the end result is ultimately the same.

The highest evolution of spirituality is acceptance and tolerance IMHO.

It's the person that sees no meaning or value to life that makes me uneasy.

[Arathena]

As far as I'm aware, the modern protestant translations (NIV, ASV, etc.) work very hard to find the oldest texts possible for the accepted canon (39/27). I've no idea if it's the same on the Catholic side, but wouldn't imagine it would be different. While the Church certainly went through plenty of times where they tried to rewrite the faith, the modern translations I know of seem to have got past that and do actually attempt for historical accuracy - even to the point of discussing the different variants on translation in "study" versions.

Dd

Yes and no. For the distribution of common language bibles, translation from available Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is preferred by the Church. Formally, however, the 'official' bible is the Nova Vulgata, a Latin translation restored from the manuscripts of the Jerome Vulgate that survived the Dark Ages. All new translations should be consistent with the Nova Vulgata. Pre 1970, it was the Clementine Vulgate.

Generally, however, it should be noted that the direct source material often plays second fiddle to the intended purpose of the translation, along with the dogmatic prejudices of the translator: as society, and the usages of its language has changed vastly, a certain degree of interpretation is neccesary when dealing with any ancient text. There are disasters going in every direction, from the 1-for-1 Concordant:

Gen 1:20 - "And saying is God, ‘Roaming is the water with the roaming, living soul, and the flyer is flying over the earth on the face of the atmosphere of the heavens’"

Matt. 9:16-17 "Now no one is patching a patch of unshrunk shred on an old cloak, for the patch which fills it up is lifting some from the cloak itself, and the rent is becoming worse. Neither are they draining fresh wine into old wine skins; otherwise, surely the wine skins are bursting, and the wine is spilling, and the wine skins perish. But they are draining fresh wine into new wine skins, and both are preserved.""

to the Cotton Patch Version, for witnessing to the free negro in the pre-Civil Rights south:

Matt 9:16-17 - "Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage."

And you can go anywhere you want in between the two extremes. And then, you have the truly authoritative versions:

"Wud u put sum grose old stuf on ur new cooky? Noes! Wud u put sum fresh milks in a leeky bukkit?! NOES!"

Just for comparison, the New American Standard:

"But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

So... Which one is the Word of God?

[Klast Brell]

But even the Vulgates were translations of even earlier versions. Archeologists occasionally dig up truly old texts. Stuff 1600, 1700 years old. It presents a few problems. 1. The versions are rarely contain the exact same text. When one version says Jesus spent 5 days in the town and another says Jesus stayed 2 days, decisions have to be made as to witch version to use. 2. The Catholics have a different book list from the protestants, which is different from the eastern orthodox book list which is different from the Ethiopian christian church. There are tons of books books that are not in the bible. Lots of other books have been found that are not in any of the bibles. Gospels attributed to all sorts of people including Judas, Mary , and Pontious Pilate. Piles more books for the old and new testament. Some were not used because their authenticity was disputed. Others not used because they were not even rediscovered until long after the final form of the bible (bibles) had been chosen.

[Garrdor]

There are tons of books books that are not in the bible

How many times have I told you, Baldo -

DOUBLE BOOKS CANCEL EACHOTHER OUT.

LEARN YOURSELF SOME ENGLISH U SOUTH AFRICAN DUDE

[Partha]

I'm just waiting for someone to try and stick lines from WoT in a modern bible, to see if it can be made more boring.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The official word of God needs a watermark logo or laser etched tag or something.

* This product and other products with the official Jehovah (tm) logo are your assurance of spiritual quality.

[Klast Brell]

I couldn't resist.

[Harlowe]

Okay that was good.

[Klast Brell]

I read something very interesting this weekend. In the genesis story about the tree of knowledge God lies and the snake tells the truth.

God Lies about the tree. Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve believes God's lie and repeats it to the snake. Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The snake tells the truth. Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die . For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Ddrak]

Nah - different meanings of "die".

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Nah - different meanings of "die".

Dd

Really? How do you know that?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

That story always reminded me of bad parenting.

To the 2 year old:

"Daddy is going to leave this creamy delicious cupcake on the counter, then he's going to work and trusting you not to eat it, so don't eat it. Even though it looks ridiculously tasty, it's really bad so don't eat it!"

Design any experiment that involves something incredibly tempting that's linked to the doom of mankind, and we will be doomed every single time. So God sounds like a naive parent too.

And putting a curse on the cupcake for future generations (which is bullshit) doesn't take away from the fact that the guy who put the creamy delicious cupcake on the counter in the first place should've been able to easily anticipate the results. Seriously, c'mon.

[Ddrak]

Nah - different meanings of "die".

Dd

Really? How do you know that?

Story doesn't make sense any other way, as you pointed out, especially given it's not likely that it's a literal truth (you'd expect someone would have found Eden by now if it was and reported a bloody big animated sword keeping them out). It's basically a parallel of the devil tempting Jesus in the desert - he uses the same tack "you won't die".

Dd

[Klast Brell]

So "die" doesn't mean "die" and the garden doesn't exist and, and, and...

What do you have left in the end?

[Arathena]

So "die" doesn't mean "die" and the garden doesn't exist and, and, and...

What do you have left in the end?

Pretty much just Matthew 7:12.

"So alwaiz treet othrz liek u want dem to treet u. Kthnxbai."

Oh, and a fairly raunchy poem.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The symbolism of the story isn't bad if you don't take it literally. I've always seen it as a metaphor of mankind at some point being elevated above the beasts, into the era of personal responsibility. Were we elevated by conscious choice of the creator, some oversight of the creator (garden of Eden) or were we elevated by evolution due to random chance?

So we're separated from lower creatures by this extra "zing" of intelligence that lower life forms don't have, so to me the tree of knowledge is just a (convoluted) metaphor for that. In the movie 2001: A space odyssey, the metaphor is a black obelisk that the apes touch. Certainly humans have made some leap of intelligence above the rest of the animal kingdom so naturally there are a lot of possible explanations, including religious ones.

[Kulaf]

Guys.....the answer is pretty simple. Adam and Eve were imortal at the point before they ate from the tree. Without the knowledge of good and evil God would have allowed them to eat from the tree of Life.

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

[Select]

I don't believe in the story, but from what I've read and heard, I'm glad the snake came along. The alternative doesn't sound that great.

[Klast Brell]

Guys.....the answer is pretty simple. Adam and Eve were imortal at the point before they ate from the tree. Without the knowledge of good and evil God would have allowed them to eat from the tree of Life.

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And yet, god was afraid that they would eat from the tree of life and become immortal. How could that be if they were immortal before? I know! they were immortal before, then they became mortal, and if they would eat from the other tree they would be immortal again, but omnipotent god was helpless to undo the damage done from the first tree, so instead if feeling bad for them he punished them and all their descendants forever. Because he is a merciful god.