whats your thoughts on Psalms 82:6-

[Cthulhu]

A translation and a re-writing are two different things.

There are no contradictions in The Psalms or The Book of Proverbs or The Book of Enoch. Just because The Gospels and The Torah have been tampered with, don't assume that all of them are tainted until you check for yourself.

Not entirely. While a pure re-write accomplishes a different goal than translation, translation itself requires a certain amount of re-writing in order to put the text in to something coherent in the new language. You can't just take Greek and Hebrew words and find their closest English counterparts and stick them in. Translators usually have some degree of poetic, lyrical, or literary skill in order to make the translated text true to the spirit of the original. Furthermore, etymologies change over time, meaning that some ancient words have counterparts in English with drastically differen connotations, so the author has to choose which word best represents what that scripture was trying to get across. That's why theologians are still arguing over whether Sodom and Gomorrah specifically refers to homosexuality itself, or rather to violent sexuality and rape (as the actions of the townspeople would imply).

I say it's pointless and absurd to base your life around an ancient text of mythological stories. By all means, research it. Read it. Take what values you may think useful from it. But the minute you think an all-controlling God created it and will punish you for not following it, you've let yourself be taken by delusion.

You talk about texts that aren't "tampered" with. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek and have read the original scrolls, I am not inclined to believe you. Why bother cherry-picking what books are God's "REAL" words, when it's far more likely that all the books were written by men and should be viewed in the context of the clannish socieites they lived in.

[Urban_Journalz]

Not entirely. While a pure re-write accomplishes a different goal than translation, translation itself requires a certain amount of re-writing in order to put the text in to something coherent in the new language. You can't just take Greek and Hebrew words and find their closest English counterparts and stick them in. Translators usually have some degree of poetic, lyrical, or literary skill in order to make the translated text true to the spirit of the original. Furthermore, etymologies change over time, meaning that some ancient words have counterparts in English with drastically differen connotations, so the author has to choose which word best represents what that scripture was trying to get across. That's why theologians are still arguing over whether Sodom and Gomorrah specifically refers to homosexuality itself, or rather to violent sexuality and rape (as the actions of the townspeople would imply).

I say it's pointless and absurd to base your life around an ancient text of mythological stories. By all means, research it. Read it. Take what values you may think useful from it. But the minute you think an all-controlling God created it and will punish you for not following it, you've let yourself be taken by delusion.

You talk about texts that aren't "tampered" with. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek and have read the original scrolls, I am not inclined to believe you. Why bother cherry-picking what books are God's "REAL" words, when it's far more likely that all the books were written by men and should be viewed in the context of the clannish socieites they lived in.

First of all, what you're "inclined to believe" makes all of no difference to me and I couldn't care less about it.

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact, just because you happen to be one of the many people that chooses to make sheer disbelief a matter of pseudo-philosophy.

This thread was made for people to speak upon what they thought this particular verse meant. One thing you disbelievers should remember is that you're not doing harm to anyone but yourself when you speak. Of course, you'll deny this and say you were just "expressing yourself", because admitting to the truth is further from your grasp than anything.

Being fluent in Hebrew or Greek has nothing to do with it, because even if I were, you'd still find a reason to label what was written false. Your whole point of entering this thread was to cause discord. Even if the original scrolls were right in front of you, you'd say something like, "Well, I don't know who wrote it." or "Unless I see God Himself write it, I'm not inclined to believe in it."

Trust me, I smell people like you coming a mile away.

You call them "ancient mythological stories", yet you have no proof of that. All you have to go on, is that since it was a time before you existed, then it must not be true. Or since you can't see, smell and touch it, then it must be myth. You're no different than an atheist, because if a rule or set of rules is given that goes against your habits, customs or inclinations, then it's automatically false because you're too weak to practice self-restraint for the good of your own soul.

You say translators "usually" have....and that may be so, but unlike you, I've actually gone through most of The Scriptures and considering the fact that they were delivered at different times, to different peoples, in different languages, and I still find traces of one in the other, I'm more inclined to believe my instincts because they evolved way before a sometimes over-evaluating brain.

You'd rather follow a theologian than Scripture. See, I'm not like you. You have more faith in man, A creation, than you have in God, The Creator. You put your faith in people who put their faith in science, all the while neglecting to answer the question, "Who do you think GAVE you science to begin with?" Man wasn't born knowing speech, thought and action. It was taught to him as it was taught to his ancestors for generations back.

You speak of all religious sects as groups who practice violence, murder and other atrocities. All you do with that is prove that you're not only ignorant, but another big fan of using sterotypes as a defense to prove your point. If you can even call it a point.

Etymologies change over time? That's just vague and a really poor defence. Some etymologies change over time, and until you can prove that the languages in question, thosee being Hebrew and Greek, have changed between the time that those Scriptures were written and now, save it for those more inclined to follow conjecture and guesses.

You'd rather play in shallow trifles than look at the big picture and connect the dots that are as clear as day. And if that's your fate, then so be it.

You want proof? Proof is all around you as well as inside of you. But mankind, above all else, is ungrateful and contentious. The kind of sign you want is on it's way. So wait for it. Believe me, I'm waiting for it along with you.

[SG]

Why do religious people think morality HAD to be handed down by some higher being? Morals and values were assets that evolved in human sociology as civilization evolved. Most people act morally or compassionately because they realize that other humans are sentient beings like themselves who feel pain and emotion the same way they do. I don't need to believe in God to know that I should help a blind person cross the street or to know that rape and murder aren't dispicable.

On the other hand, there's all these so-called "moral" majority who do stupid, useless, oftentimes bigoted, and utterly delusional things, not out of compassion, but because they think it will please their God. I can't think of a more selfish motivation. Saving your own skin from eternal damnation by doing retarded things like standing outside a planned parenthood center with giant posters of mutilated fetuses. Not only is it a complete waste of time, but it's downright bizarre. Of course, what else can you expect from a religion that uses the image of a tortured and mutliated man as its emblem?

Why do religious people think morality HAD to be handed down by some higher being?

Theology and Ethics....the rest of your comments are not related to the topic of the thread

Like I said "to each his own" if you feel different about the content of topic which is the objective, make your own thread and people can further discuss the matter

[Cthulhu]

First of all, what you're "inclined to believe" makes all of no difference to me and I couldn't care less about it.

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact, just because you happen to be one of the many people that chooses to make sheer disbelief a matter of pseudo-philosophy.

This thread was made for people to speak upon what they thought this particular verse meant. One thing you disbelievers should remember is that you're not doing harm to anyone but yourself when you speak. Of course, you'll deny this and say you were just "expressing yourself", because admitting to the truth is further from your grasp than anything.

Being fluent in Hebrew or Greek has nothing to do with it, because even if I were, you'd still find a reason to label what was written false. Your whole point of entering this thread was to cause discord. Even if the original scrolls were right in front of you, you'd say something like, "Well, I don't know who wrote it." or "Unless I see God Himself write it, I'm not inclined to believe in it."

Trust me, I smell people like you coming a mile away.

You call them "ancient mythological stories", yet you have no proof of that. All you have to go on, is that since it was a time before you existed, then it must not be true. Or since you can't see, smell and touch it, then it must be myth. You're no different than an atheist, because if a rule or set of rules is given that goes against your habits, customs or inclinations, then it's automatically false because you're too weak to practice self-restraint for the good of your own soul.

You say translators "usually" have....and that may be so, but unlike you, I've actually gone through most of The Scriptures and considering the fact that they were delivered at different times, to different peoples, in different languages, and I still find traces of one in the other, I'm more inclined to believe my instincts because they evolved way before a sometimes over-evaluating brain.

You'd rather follow a theologian than Scripture. See, I'm not like you. You have more faith in man, A creation, than you have in God, The Creator. You put your faith in people who put their faith in science, all the while neglecting to answer the question, "Who do you think GAVE you science to begin with?" Man wasn't born knowing speech, thought and action. It was taught to him as it was taught to his ancestors for generations back.

You speak of all religious sects as groups who practice violence, murder and other atrocities. All you do with that is prove that you're not only ignorant, but another big fan of using sterotypes as a defense to prove your point. If you can even call it a point.

Etymologies change over time? That's just vague and a really poor defence. Some etymologies change over time, and until you can prove that the languages in question, thosee being Hebrew and Greek, have changed between the time that those Scriptures were written and now, save it for those more inclined to follow conjecture and guesses.

You'd rather play in shallow trifles than look at the big picture and connect the dots that are as clear as day. And if that's your fate, then so be it.

You want proof? Proof is all around you as well as inside of you. But mankind, above all else, is ungrateful and contentious. The kind of sign you want is on it's way. So wait for it. Believe me, I'm waiting for it along with you.

I AM in fact an atheist. You're absolutely right. Even if I could read the original texts I would pass them off as myth as I do the translated ones. You know why? They are full of horrible ideas and horrible values that have led humankind into vicious wars and unspeakable atrocities. Some times people had bad intentions and used God to justify it. Other times people had good intentions, but because of their fucked up religious beliefs they still committed something horrible. Abrahamic religions have some good values, no doubt, but the effect is essentially negated because they want you to follow an invisible spook in the sky without question. Without rational thought people let every kind of irrational dicatator control their thoughts, that includes REAL priests and kings as well as their imaginary God.

PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.

And you're absolutely right to say that I cannot prove he doesn't exist. I also can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Or that the Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction. I mean, they claim to be true, just like the Bible or Quran, right? But I don't see you arguing to me that I should serve Almighty Zeus and his Olympian comrades. Instead you want me to believe in your omnipotent dictator who will throw me in hell for my questioning nature he supposedly granted me.

Why believe one unfounded story over the other?

[Urban_Journalz]

I AM in fact an atheist. You're absolutely right. Even if I could read the original texts I would pass them off as myth as I do the translated ones. You know why? They are full of horrible ideas and horrible values that have led humankind into vicious wars and unspeakable atrocities. Some times people had bad intentions and used God to justify it. Other times people had good intentions, but because of their fucked up religious beliefs they still committed something horrible. Abrahamic religions have some good values, no doubt, but the effect is essentially negated because they want you to follow an invisible spook in the sky without question. Without rational thought people let every kind of irrational dicatator control their thoughts, that includes REAL priests and kings as well as their imaginary God.

PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.

And you're absolutely right to say that I cannot prove he doesn't exist. I also can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Or that the Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction. I mean, they claim to be true, just like the Bible or Quran, right? But I don't see you arguing to me that I should serve Almighty Zeus and his Olympian comrades. Instead you want me to believe in your omnipotent dictator who will throw me in hell for my questioning nature he supposedly granted me.

Why believe one unfounded story over the other?

That's no surpirise and if you're an atheist, you have no business in a thread like this.

I've said my piece.

Go rant your nonsense to someone who'll listen.

[Visionz]

PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.

you're looking for 3rd dimension evidence when you most likely have read books that deal with the 10th dimension. (very arrogant no?) Those seeds of life hitting the atmosphere even today are just coincidence right? Scientist are good at facts but bad at looking at them with any sense of intuition (?or maybe it just the believers in science?), its a blanket statement that's not completely true, but then again I doubt that all scientist are atheist (einstein wasn't). There isn't but One Grand Creator, man has made all kinds of representations devouted either to the whole or the many different aspects. Either way there is but One Source for all live, love, knowledge and understanding. If you took the very highest aspects of all the ancient scrolls of the world, regardless of what they are labeled today, and put that into one body, you would have a very balanced, healthy, respectful individual.

God is beyond our wildest imagination. You wouldn't know what its like to exist in even the 5th demension, what's it like to be a master of the 10th?? how would I know , I'm human.

either way, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, if you feel the need to respond, copy & paste and respond in a new one

[Cthulhu]

you're looking for 3rd dimension evidence when you most likely have read books that deal with the 10th dimension. (very arrogant no?) Those seeds of life hitting the atmosphere even today are just coincidence right? Scientist are good at facts but bad at looking at them with any sense of intuition (?or maybe it just the believers in science?), its a blanket statement that's not completely true, but then again I doubt that all scientist are atheist (einstein wasn't). There isn't but One Grand Creator, man has made all kinds of representations devouted either to the whole or the many different aspects. Either way there is but One Source for all live, love, knowledge and understanding. If you took the very highest aspects of all the ancient scrolls of the world, regardless of what they are labeled today, and put that into one body, you would have a very balanced, healthy, respectful individual.

God is beyond our wildest imagination. You wouldn't know what its like to exist in even the 5th demension, what's it like to be a master of the 10th?? how would I know , I'm human.

either way, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, if you feel the need to respond, copy & paste and respond in a new one

If you believe God or whatever is an unknowable concept, then why bother trying to pinpoint what laws he cares for us to have on earth?

Science doesn't claim whether or not there is a supernatural or not. I know there are plenty of religious scientists. Science is simply a means of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about it. We can't yet prove whether or not God exists through it, however, being that there is no empirical evidence to even SUGGEST his existence, why bother believing in the first place? That's the problem with theodicy: it's trying to rationalize a previously drawn conclusion. Science and formal logic do not work upon a preconcieved premise, but rather observe natural phenomena or acknowledge cognitive facts and work out a conclusion from there.

[Cthulhu]

That's no surpirise and if you're an atheist, you have no business in a thread like this.

I've said my piece.

Go rant your nonsense to someone who'll listen.

How do I have no place? This is a public forum. The thread asked what you thought of a particular Bible passage, and I said what I felt. Do you feel that only religious people are allowed to comment on religion?

You talk to me of ranting nonsense, yet you suspend all formal logic and reasoning for your irrational faith in god, and you won't even engage me in a discussion. Could it be you have nothing valid to back up your religious conviction? Are you afraid I might test your faith to the point you'll have to acknowledge the inherent logical fallacies present in all religious faith?

[Visionz]

If you believe God or whatever is an unknowable concept, then why bother trying to pinpoint what laws he cares for us to have on earth?

Science doesn't claim whether or not there is a supernatural or not. I know there are plenty of religious scientists. Science is simply a means of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about it. We can't yet prove whether or not God exists through it, however, being that there is no empirical evidence to even SUGGEST his existence, why bother believing in the first place? That's the problem with theodicy: it's trying to rationalize a previously drawn conclusion. Science and formal logic do not work upon a preconcieved premise, but rather observe natural phenomena or acknowledge cognitive facts and work out a conclusion from there.

I don't think God is somuch unknowable asmuch as unlimited, & limitless. There's plenty to Suggest but that requires both intuition and assumption both really outside of the realm of empirical evidence. For instance, (and referring back) carbon globules fall onto earth even to this day. My assumption is that these are the seeds of life that are floating all throughout the universe, and that any place that can sustain life WILL, atleast eventually. And all this life is interconnected because it has a Single Source. This isn't anything I can prove but it is what I believe to be true. Those carbon globs, atleast to me, are empirical evidence that Suggest the existence of God.


And people know instinctively between right or wrong, God is there without the religous text. Those that are without it are often phsyco lunatics, in effect, truely godless people.

[Cthulhu]

I don't think God is somuch unknowable asmuch as unlimited, & limitless. There's plenty to Suggest but that requires both intuition and assumption both really outside of the realm of empirical evidence. For instance, (and referring back) carbon globules fall onto earth even to this day. My assumption is that these are the seeds of life that are floating all throughout the universe, and that any place that can sustain life WILL, atleast eventually. And all this life is interconnected because it has a Single Source. This isn't anything I can prove but it is what I believe to be true. Those carbon globs, atleast to me, are empirical evidence that Suggest the existence of God.


And people know instinctively between right or wrong, God is there without the religous text. Those that are without it are often phsyco lunatics, in effect, truely godless people.

Intuition and assumption outside empirical evidence are just fancies and imagination. Without something observable and testable, you have no premise from which to draw a conclusion, other than your mind's creative will, which unfortunately you are using to delude yourself.

The whole notion of God commanding morality is absurd.

You say lunatics and psychos are godless, but religious terrorists are not "godless" by definition, as they are doing dispicable acts in service of their god. Sure you can rationalize by saying that their beliefs are "tainted" or "misinterpreted", but that's precisely the problem with Western religions. Their texts contain both humanitarian and totalitarian ideas, and people cherry pick what they think is right based on their own inclinations.

You're obviously a rational religious person who realizes that violent acts are not a good protocol for a modern society. But God didn't give you that intuition. The human concept of good and evil can exist free of him. People have an instict as to what is good and evil based on the fact that they know other humans are sentient beings with a capacity for suffering and pain just as them.

I'm entirely godless, but I know that rape is wrong (in fact the Christian God never even condemns this in the Bible, he only says you should pay the father for damaged goods or marry her). I don't need God to tell me that helping a blind person cross the street is a good moral decision.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said "people are inclined to act good or evil, but it takes religion to make a normally good person do something wicked." Female suicide bombers are often abused and broken women who have been brainwashed by their clerics into believing that such a repugnant act will please Allah.

[Visionz]

Intuition and assumption outside empirical evidence are just fancies and imagination. Without something observable and testable, you have no premise from which to draw a conclusion, other than your mind's creative will, which unfortunately you are using to delude yourself.

This is the thing here though, as one who relies on the scientific methodology of thought I know you realize that there are things beyond human comprehension. And not only are they beyond our comprehension but also our subjection. There where billions of years of DNA at work before we ever truly understood what it was. Woud I be delusional to say that there in intelligent life out there on other planets? No empirical evidence of that right? Where do delusions stop and probability and statistics begin?

The whole notion of God commanding morality is absurd.

You say lunatics and psychos are godless, but religious terrorists are not "godless" by definition, as they are doing dispicable acts in service of their god. Sure you can rationalize by saying that their beliefs are "tainted" or "misinterpreted", but that's precisely the problem with Western religions. Their texts contain both humanitarian and totalitarian ideas, and people cherry pick what they think is right based on their own inclinations.

I'm not exactly what you would call religious.As such I don't see God as some Santa Claus in the sky meddiling with human affairs. We are wired the way we are for a reason, you don't actually have to believe in God to benefit from being one of God's creations, to me its just as simple as that. There's a inexhaustable amount of choices for people to make in life and we have free will. I don't confuse the atrocities committed in God's name to be of God. It's not like God votes Republican nor that Chaney or Rove are very religous people. It's not gonna stop 'em from trying to manipulate the masses they know are religous. People shouldn't be such suckers, but again, not God's fault.

You're obviously a rational religious person who realizes that violent acts are not a good protocol for a modern society. But God didn't give you that intuition
I would say that God did & very good one at that. Freakishly good at times . The human concept of good and evil can exist free of him. I say God exist beyond,before, and free of our own concept of good and evilPeople have an instict as to what is good and evil based on the fact that they know other humans are sentient beings with a capacity for suffering and pain just as them.

in other words how they're wired. Our own morality was programmed into us by evolution itself but I have no doubt that it has always been intended that way

[Ultimate Fist]

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact

Irony

[Cthulhu]

Irony

More like simple hypocrisy.

The real irony (and I mean this in the sense of literary tragedy) is how Urban Journalz fails to realize how threatening his beliefs are to freedom of thought and human rights. He himself may not ascribe to acts of violence, but he's already demonstrated his willingness to dehumanize others by viewing me as a "lesser" person for denying the existence of his god and wishing suffering upon me in a fictional "afterlife".

[Ultimate Fist]

More like simple hypocrisy.

The real irony (and I mean this in the sense of literary tragedy) is how Urban Journalz fails to realize how threatening his beliefs are to freedom of thought and human rights.

I don't think he would care if he did or if he does. He's expressed that sentiment before.

[Urban_Journalz]

lol

Faggots.

Let's see how much more time you two spend talking about me.