According to the last poll, which pulled a respectable 121 responses, nearly half of us still prefer to use either the King James Version or the New KJV. None of us is bothered with the trendy Message paraphrase, almost as many of us have given up on the Bible thing entirely as use the scholarly NRSV, and a bare five percent have been convinced by the evangelically-minded to change to the NIV or TNIV.
Confused? I sure am.
Even more interesting, nearly a quarter of us prefer another translation to the ones listed.
So, if you voted "other," what do you use and why?
89 comments:
Gavin,
The fact that the vast majority here still prefer a translation of the Bible that was almost out of date before its ink was dry is very telling. And what this tells me is that you have a far greater number of Armstrongologists reading here than meets the eye.
Most of us know that the Herbster's favorite translation was the KJV. He clung to the myth that this was because it was the most accurate. But I suspected all along that this version suited him personally due to its archaic Quaker type language. It made him proud of his "solid Quaker stock" that he bragged he came from.
And most "Christians" play the same game as the Herbster did. They "translation shop" until they get the doctrinal results they want. And they like to mix & match translations when it suits their theological fancy. Which is why religionists are a lot like that joke about economists. If you laid them all end to end, they would all be pointing in different directions.
As I have been saying for a long time, every man (and woman) does that which is right in his own eyes, and all the time, including choosing his fave translation to support his pet doctrines. And now I will sit back and relax while I watch all the kookie denials pour in.
Religionists can be quite entertaining when you confront them with the truth about themselves. :-)
Revised English Bible, successor to the New English Bible. A good translation can help give a fresh perspective to timeworn phraseology. Geared for British readers, but accessible to those living in lands formerly linked to GB.
I most commonly use the Complete Jewish Bible as it brings out the Jewish culture like no other translation. Also I use the translation called Transline for NT study. It is one of the most literal New Testaments with the most valuable notes.
I, too, use the Revised English Version because it has the Apocrypha and is easy to read. The language it uses makes sense to me. The Complete Jewish and Transline bibles sound interesting. I think I'll look into those.
I like Frank Herbert's Dune.
We are talking fiction, right?
Paul
I am most acquainted with the 1971 Edition RSV, so prefer this one on the rare occasions when I consult any of them.
Prefer reading texts of Pseudepigrapha, Nag Hammadi, ANF (some) and works by non-orthodox writers such as Bart Ehrman, Robert Eisenman, Walter Bauer etc.
Hey guys, great comments. Stinger makes some really interesting observations, and I'm blown away that someone other than myself likes the REB. I haven't tried the Stern translation (CJB) but, hey, I am a big fan of Frank Herbert, Paul!
Is there a difference between the Bible and the Dune Trilogy? I think there is, if only that the former helped in large measure shape the development of Western culture, and that means the assumptions we all carry around in our heads. Getting to grips with it then doesn't need to be anything "devotional" or cringingly literal, and may lead to some surprising insights.
By coincidence I'm off tonight to hear the wicked bishop Spong speak on the subject: "The Bible: The Solution or Problem." ;-)
And here I was thinking that most people would be plugging for Fred Coulter's KJV rewrite!
Paul said...
I like Frank Herbert's Dune.
We are talking fiction, right?
We are talking late bronze age religious mythology and an iron age god/man legend.
I rather liked the old Sumerian version but the Zarathustra version is somewhat of an improvement, whereas the Zend Avesta is way too complicated for me.
I much prefer Flurry's translation of the Bible over the others, with Gerald's quotations in red type.
Stingerski said: "But I suspected all along that this version suited him personally due to its archaic Quaker type language. It made him proud of his "solid Quaker stock" that he bragged he came from."
I don't think so. I am from Quaker stock as well and the Quaker's did not emphasize the Bible much. Quakerism has a strong mysterical, experiential component. You do not find Quaker commentaries and Bible helps.
HWA must have gotten this from other sources, perhaps Protestant. When I heard the issue of KJV accuracy presented in the WCG once, it involved the fact that James was an Israelitish King and so it had to be good.
I think if Paul wants to base his life on Dune, he has the perfect right to. If you are an atheist you can base your life on anything or nothing -- no difference. Where it becomes puzzling is when an atheist wants other people to following his example when in a valueless system there is no good example.
-- Neo
"The fact that James was an Israelitish king"
Eeeeew! and all the time disguised as English too . . .
It were God what dunnit.
I'm sure there are some good atheists in history but I haven't heard of atheism as being a "system", valueless or otherwise.
Usually though, atheists are humanists - if that has value. However, while you are waiting for the non-return of Jesus, would you at least help us preserve our planet so that your grandkids will have a place to keep spreading the gospel of the return of Jesus? K? Thaaanks.
Perhaps "system" was not a good choice of terms on my part. Maybe "belief" would have been a better word, with no organization implied. "Valueless", however, was a good choice. It is a paradox that atheists, who do not believe in any kind of a god and do not believe in either absolute good or absolute bad, would care about anybody. To behave as if there is absolute good and absolute bad is not being true to atheist beliefs.
On this blog many atheists espouse their beliefs, because their way is "better". But in the atheistic realm, there is no good or bad or better or worse. That too is paradoxical. Why should atheists condemn anything that they experience or witness in this world? For them it is just a world of meaningless experiences and behaviors, none of which are any "better" than others. They could not possibly assert that atheism is good and Christianity is bad. Or Christianity is good and atheism is bad, for that matter. And lastly, why should they advocate that anyone should be like them?
Their emotions are just something that mindless evolution has equipped them with. So these emotions can be discounted - just an artifact of materialistic processes. What is true and what should be followed with great fidelity, for the atheist, is meaninglessness.
-- Neo
"I think if Paul wants to base his life on Dune, he has the perfect right to."
Why on earth would I want to base my life on a work of fiction?
"If you are an atheist you can base your life on anything or nothing -- no difference."
*sigh* Yes, because atheism is all about "nothing." What a horrid concept. We atheists pop anti-depressants like candy to ward off the depression and fear of the all the nothingness.
"Where it becomes puzzling is when an atheist wants other people to following his example when in a valueless system there is no good example."
A valueless system? Are you implying that atheists, outside of Gawd, have absolutely no morality or moral framework? No ideals?
It boggles the mind that some people actually believe that a human being, left to his own devices, will never, without the guidance of the Gawds, come to understand what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.
Paul
Atheism is not a religion, or a belief system. It isn't even a philosophical outlook. In fact, I don't even really like the term atheism; I prefer "normal." Atheism is simply a lack of belief in so called "gods."
Neotherm, can you provide evidence that atheists at large do not believe in "good or bad?" That they have no morality.
Who is more amoral? The man who realizes from observation and reasoning that it is wrong to hurt others, or the man who can only come to that conclusion at the instruction of an imaginary being? I would call the latter depraved. He only refrains from murder due to fear of punishment, or promise of reward, or as commonly proclaimed, out of "love" to please his or her imaginary being.
Paul
My biggest delight in seeing all the Armstrongites clinging to the KJV of the Bible is the fact that it was sponsored by a gay man! Too funny! God Bless Queen James!
LOL!
Paul said:
It boggles the mind that some people actually believe that a human being, left to his own devices, will never, without the guidance of the Gawds, come to understand what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.
Yes, and the interesting part to me is how these religious "moralists" keep trying to get people to believe that it is their Gawd's behavioral standards we should all be following. Like all 400+ Armstrongologist cults saying "Follow us!"
But standards change all the time. If we go back 100 hundred years all of these "standards" were perfectly acceptable, and could even be supported by the "holy" scriptures:
- Men beating their wives when they got out of control.
- Negroes were still servants, no matter what skills they were capable of.
- All businesses (save, ahem, taverns) were closed on Sundays.
Yes, how nice those "Christian" standards were then. And I am sure that the Herbster would have heartily agreed with all three, save he would have changed Sunday to Saturday later on in his cobbled together crackpot theology.
Once again, religionists are just like everybody else as they do that which is right in their own eyes (or the eyes of their cult).
And they do this all the time, all day long.
I found that HWA would quote from the Moffatt version more than anyone I have ever seen in the religious realm, or frankly even from the COG realm.
My favorite, (dont laugh!) is the Living Bible. Yes, it is a bad translation and useless for any scholarly research etc., but for me, it is priceless to catch the general flow of the story, especially in the Old Testament, and even the New.
Lussenheide
It is the Feast of Trumpets.
Hope all you ex-Coggers are giving a thought to that lunchtime meal,often potluck that you are missing.
Them wuz the daze.
Seamus
"My favorite, (dont laugh!) is the Living Bible."
*gasp* Heresy!! Burn him!
I remember the Living Bible didn't sit well with me, especially on scriptures having to do with the Law in the life of the Christian.
Paul
Neotherm said...
"It is a paradox that atheists, who do not believe in any kind of a god and do not believe in either absolute good or absolute bad, would care about anybody."
How is atheists caring about family, friends, freedom, the welfare of the planet and mankind's future a paradox?
Do you believe in "absolute good or absolute bad"? Okay. Tell us, what is absolute good? What is absolute bad?
Face it, as much as it irks you, that atheists are people with feelings, compassions, beliefs and goals etc. in life as anyone else. We are all human but being human is not an inherently bad thing as you believe but is only what we are.
No, we are not clay people shaped by a master potter. We are as everything else is on this planet - part of this planet and made of this planet. That's it, nothing more.
I like the New American Standard Bible (NASB), here is just a sample from the OT
Lev 23:23 Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (24) "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'In the seventh month on the first of the month, you shall have a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.
Do enjoy the Fall Holy Days!
Do have a lovely "Feast of Trumpets"
For reading about Jesus, I like the concise Jefferson Bible.
The "sayings" of Jesus without the embellishments.
The Father of our Country, Thomas Jefferson may have cut and pasted his way into theology history, but its an interesting creation on its own right.
Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings by Marcus Borg is also a very interesting read.
As you can tell, I'm not a Biblicist. I don't give a hang about doctrine. I've had a belly full of people hating each other about doctrines and ignoring what Jesus said about how we treat each other.
Anon. said:
Do enjoy the Fall Holy Days!
It also says in Lev. 23:42 that you are to live in a booth for the upcoming Feast of (hint, hint) Booths for seven days. And no, Motel 6 does not count as a booth, no matter what the Herbster may have told you.
Let us all know how you enjoyed observing this part of the Jewish law you have placed yourself under. And remember that James said if you break any one part of the law you have broken all of it. So, no picking & choosing allowed here.
And, if possible, please attach a picture of your booth.
I didn't vote, but I've gone from Armstrongist true believer to agnostic/atheist and I still prefer the KJV for two reasons: 1) it's familiarity, which dates back to my earliest childhood and 2) its majestic language.
Stinger>>The fact that the vast majority here still prefer a translation of the Bible that was almost out of date before its ink was dry is very telling.<<
"Almost?" What does that mean? Your comment is just a glib opinion, for the available evidence proves that the translation was long awaited and most welcome when it was published and circulated among the British people, in 1611.
>>And what this tells me is that you have a far greater number of Armstrongologists reading here than meets the eye.<<
What a tendentious statement! Are you prepared to scrape the bottom of the barrel to discredit HWA?
>>As I have been saying for a long time, every man (and woman) does that which is right in his own eyes, and all the time, including choosing his fave translation to support his pet doctrines.<<
"Every man," including Stinger? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
Tom
Stinger, near as I can tell, most of the Armstrongists not only will not be in literal booths with palm fronds and all [reminiscent of a disfellowshipped minister of the sixties making such claims that we should and that "we would be hearing more about this from headquarters" before being ousted from the Radio Church of God for heresy just after he received his independence from an inheritance -- amazing what a little money can do!], but...
The Armstrongists are keeping the feasts on the wrong days! Which means they are not keeping them at all! They are postponed! At least two days late this year! Next year (again) a whole month off!
But then again, it doesn't matter which translation of the Bible you pick, because you have to bind up your tithes in the form of produce and go to either the Tabernacle in the Wilderness or up to Jerusalem [in the millennium, there won't be any other option] or, translate the tithe of the produce and increase in animals for the year into money and add 20%.
Great fun!
Of course, this assumes that you are on a piece of land that God has given you in a country provided by that same God. If you are a mere wage earner, well, then, forget it. That's not how the Temple System works! Hope your garden was big enough to support the air fare to exotic places and will provide enough for... no, Stinger is right, all you need is a permit to gather the palm fronds from the park and your lodging is ready to go!
As for that other nasty topic, hasn't anyone ever heard of objective morality? Assuredly, someone is going to claim that I have mentioned it for the 23,416,879,066th time. And then forget to mention that God was angry all through the Bible, including, but not restricted to the Day of the Lord [most colorful in the KJV, methinks], where God pours out His stored up wrath upon all the world -- likely because they weren't keeping the Feasts on the right days! Didn't God say that He hated their Feasts? [Then again, He said He hated Esau!]
Well, there is that Scripture about God reserving 7,000 for Himself, even in the temple of Baal. Sort of reminds you of the Pasadena "House for God" now inhabited by "those people". What a non legacy! No scraping of the bottom of the barrel here: Take it right off the top! The blind lame faltering over a stumbling block to curse the deaf! And for what? Because of being irritated by someone pointing out the hypocrisy of the idolatry in which they are steeped?
Ah, such obvious anger! What wrath! Just make sure it the sun doesn't go down... ah, forget it! Biblical illiterates who couldn't see how angry Jesus was with the Pharisees simply don't understand how to read, even if it is the KJV.
"Are you prepared to scrape the bottom of the barrel to discredit HWA?"
One does not have to scrape the bottom of a barrel to discredit Armstrong. His own words, writings, and actions work nicely.
Paul
Of all the philsophies banging around, atheism produces more people that do not actualize their beliefs than any philsophy I know of. We have Paul and Corky claiming to have ascended to the lofty heights of nihilism and yet react as if they believed there really is a system of right and wrong and that they somehow have a right to be incensed.
We have Richard Dawkins preaching the atheistic gospel with the same type of close-minded, legalism that we would find among the right-wing evangelicals. As if to a real atheist any of this could possibly matter.
I just wished that atheists would act like atheists. If you believe you are a product of a natural process called evolution and that you are nothing but a biological mechanism, please act that way.
Why should Paul and Corky care about anything. They live in a godless, moral vacuum. That's the whole idea of atheism - no god, no absolutes no accountability. And, of course, no possible reason to go around waving the banner of atheism in other people's faces.
It does not require doing a careful statistical study about what atheists believe. Atheism does have a definition. Once they have entered into nihilism, what atheists believe is obvious. And really it is a paradox that they would be offended by anything I might say because nothing has meaning in their world.
-- Neo
A Sabbath breaking Sabbattarian self-righteous modern Pharisee idolator worshiping in the Church Corporate defending a dead false prophet.
That's priceless.
Neo speaks as someone who knows nothing at all about atheism, and simply parrots what religious people tend to believe about the topic.
As far as the relative importance or significance of the various versions of the Bible, finding the "right" or "best" one would only be of significance to your typical garden variety legalist, or Bible inerrantist. I believe most others would find the inspiration and instruction they crave in just about any version of the book.
BB
"Neo speaks as someone who knows nothing at all about atheism, and simply parrots what religious people tend to believe about the topic."
That is a sweeping and nonsensical statement. Atheism is well defined as a belief. There is nothing mysterious about it. It is a denial of the existence of god and anything that may emanate from such a belief. This is not rocket science.
-- Neo
Neotherm said...
"Atheism is well defined as a belief. There is nothing mysterious about it. It is a denial of the existence of god and anything that may emanate from such a belief. This is not rocket science."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Atheism is not a belief, it is a non-belief in a god or gods.
Evidently it is very "mysterious" to Neotherm, who pictures atheism like it's some kind of anti-godly organization like his cult is.
I wish atheists would come together and form an organization and get the other atheists out of their closets. There really isn't as many believers in myths as cretans . . . er, christians think there is.
"Of all the philsophies banging around, atheism produces more people that do not actualize their beliefs than any philsophy I know of."
Would you classify a lack of belief in leprechauns and ogres and centaurs as a belief? No, you wouldn't. So why do you classify a lack of belief in gods as a belief? I think it is to put atheism on the same footing as any other religious system you don't believe in, such as Hinduism or Islam, so that you can dismiss it out of hand instead of intelluctually confronting atheism...the lack of evidence for Zeus, Allah, or Jehovah or leprechauns, for that matter.
"We have Paul and Corky claiming to have ascended to the lofty heights of nihilism and yet react as if they believed there really is a system of right and wrong and that they somehow have a right to be incensed."
Could you please provide evidence that atheists cannot formulate, or indeed presentlylive by, a system of right and wrong?
"We have Richard Dawkins preaching the atheistic gospel with the same type of close-minded, legalism that we would find among the right-wing evangelicals."
If trying to encourage people to reason/think rationally instead of allowing their world to be dictated by things that are not ral, then yes, I suppose it is good news.
"As if to a real atheist any of this could possibly matter."
Oh it matters all right. The course of mankind depends upon it.
"I just wished that atheists would act like atheists. If you believe you are a product of a natural process called evolution and that you are nothing but a biological mechanism, please act that way."
We do. We act like the intelligent, rational beings.
"Why should Paul and Corky care about anything. They live in a godless, moral vacuum."
Could you provide evidence that there is no morality outside of God? It's sad, your view of humans. I presume you believe that we were made by Zeus, er, Jehovah, and in his image. Such poor handiwork that we have absolutely no idea of how to behave when left to our own devices. How is it that we can send man to the moon, but apart from divine revelation, will never come to see that stealing from others is wrong? Are you really that blind to reality to think in this manner?
"That's the whole idea of atheism - no god, no absolutes no accountability. And, of course, no possible reason to go around waving the banner of atheism in other people's faces."
It is my duty to try to help those suffering from delusions in that they may come to their senses and begin to contribute to mankind.
"It does not require doing a careful statistical study about what atheists believe."
It doesn't have to be a statistical study. Just observe atheists. See if they, as a whole, rape and kill with wanton abandon. According to your view, they should be. If they do not, how do you account for that?
"And really it is a paradox that they would be offended by anything I might say because nothing has meaning in their world."
You insist on believing that I am somehow incensed or offended. I am not. I can no longer feel anger (I may become frustrated)at a person who is, in all respects, delusional. At the end of the day, you are a person who believes in imaginary beings with his whole being. It's that simple.
Paul
-- Neo
Corky,
http://outcampaign.org/
http://ffrf.org/index2.php
Paul
Paul,
Thanks:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php?sid=2224f84f4caeb4739db7ba55a8d338ae
Corky:
Atheism is not mysterious to me but sometimes your posts are. If you believe in atheism it is a belief. It is the belief in the non-existence of God. If you have a non-belief, then you are not committed to anything.
Also, "cretans" live on the island of Crete. Very impolite by the way. Where's your morality?
-- Neo
In what does the atheist best ground moral belief?
-The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility?
-The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people?
What?
Atheism- The belief NO God exists.
Agnosticism- The belief God may or may not exist.
Christianity- God exists and is knowable.
Corky, when you say your are an ATHEIST, you are saying you have a belief that NO god exists!
"It also says in Lev. 23:42 that you are to live in a booth for the upcoming Feast of (hint, hint) Booths for seven days. And no, Motel 6 does not count as a booth, no matter what the Herbster may have told you."
The entire sacrificial system did not come from God. Nor did God create a Levitical priethood. The sacrifices and the priests to take care of them are a later creation of the Jewish community.
Jer 7:22 NASB) "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
But God did give the Sabbath and the Holy Days.
There are layers of editing in the Tanakh and there is an original core that does go back to God. The are things added other then the sacrifices and the priests.
The Holy Days and Sabbath are part of the core. And we have a great deal of flexibility in how we keep them.
(Jer 6:20 NASB) "For what purpose does frankincense come to Me from Sheba, And the sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, And your sacrifices are not pleasing to Me."
God doesn't care about sacrifices nor does he care about whether we spend time in a Motel 6 during the Holy Days. There is great flexibility in how we keep the Holy Days.
"In what does the atheist best ground moral belief?"
This may sound complicated, or hard to wrap the mind around, but here we go:
I think stealing is wrong.
1. I do not like it when someone steals from me; also, when something is stolen, I firsthand can view the results.
2. I observe the effects of stealing in society at large, on the individual and community/nation level.
3. I feel that I have no right to take what is not mine.
See? It's that easy. If a person cannot come to these conclusions on their own, they are truly immoral.
Paul
Tom said:
"Every man," including Stinger? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
Yes, including me. No shooting needed.
And including you. The only difference between people like me and you is, I admit that I do that which is right in my own eyes. For this is the only way a truly rational person can live.
Which is why religionists are so irrational. Which is also why cults like Armstrongism flourish. They attract the illogical and sometimes insane portions of humanity - all looking for a fairy god mother, or magic god father, that will fulfill their wishes.
Karl Marx was right about one thing; religion is the opiate of the people. And a lot of these people will be spending like drunken sailors in the next couple of weeks, to get their drug fix at their upcoming Feast of Booze.
"If you believe in atheism it is a belief. It is the belief in the non-existence of God."
So you are an aleprechaunist, correct? What moral virtue is found in the aleprechaunist belief system? Why are you an aleprechaunist? Are you also an aunicornist? If so, how did you come to the belief system of not believing in unicorns? Doesn't it bother you, being an aleprechaunist, that you believe in nothing? How pitiable.
Paul
"If you have a non-belief, then you are not committed to anything."
What exactly is it that we are to be committed to?
Paul
Anonymous said...
Atheism- The belief NO God exists.
Agnosticism- The belief God may or may not exist.
Christianity- God exists and is knowable.
Atheism - literally, "no godism"
Atheist - literally, "no god"
"Theos" means "god" in the Greek, "a" means "no".
Theism - literally, "godism"
Theist - literally, "god"(s).
Atheism is not the belief that no god exists. Atheism is not believing in a god (period).
Anti-theism would be "the belief that no god exists" but anti-theism and atheism are not the same thing.
An atheist doesn't have a belief that he doesn't believe in gods - that's silly.
And who cares what an agnostic believes? That's why a lot of atheists claim to be agnostic, because they are afraid of the stigmatism of atheism. In other words, they are atheists but prefer to stay more "respectable". It amounts to the same thing, they are non-believers.
In reply to Anonymous:
Atheists can adopt a morality. But, of course, they start from a point of nihilism and set themselves up as a moral authority.
Atheists will sometimes even claim their morality is superior to that of Christian morality because it does not depend on an external source such as a god but depends on themselves alone.
I was reading some atheist material just recently and that was the contention -- the superiority of atheistic morality. The atheist writer claimed that he did not steal because he decided stealing was wrong. I find this paradoxical.
If an atheist starts from the point of nihilism, which he must do because there is no god and no moral absolutes, then anything he devises as morality, he has idiosyncratically concocted and reflects only his personal wishes.
But why would an atheist have a motivation to develop a morality in thte first place?
Atheists live in a world that is comprised of events with no moral significance, conditions and behaviors that are simply a product of the physical properties and attributes of the universe. So where is the motivation for morality in this?
In the atheistic world, there is no such thing as a moral value attached to the act of stealing. An atheist may not like having something stolen from him but that reaction is just a collection of chemical reactions that have no moral implications. It certainly is not something that can or should, from the nihilist perspective, be generalized to other people or society.
But atheists, if they choose, can make up a morality. I am just not sure why they would. I suppose some might just as well conclude that murder and stealing are admirable behaviors. I once had an atheist tell me, in an anthropological discussion of human sacrifice, that such an act was neither good or bad because good and bad did not exist.
So we have Paul giving us a set of logical steps about why he believes stealing is wrong. In so doing he admits that he feels the influence of some inherent natural law that proscribes theft. Where did that come from? Certainly not atheistic materialism. He is acting very much like a non-atheist. This was my original point, of all people, atheists are least true to what they believe. They instead behave like there is good and evil, which they would contend do not exist.
Atheists act as rational intelligent human beings only if they are true to their beliefs (or non-beliefs if you must have it that way). This means that they will see themselves as just another random motion of a physical universe. That their ardent advocacy of doctrinaire atheism is just a personal choice that signifies nothing and, by their own standards, we should never ever take them seriously.
My final word on this topic. This is pretty tired.
-- Neo
Neotherm said...
In reply to Anonymous:
Atheists can adopt a morality. But, of course, they start from a point of nihilism and set themselves up as a moral authority.
"nihilism"
1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
Is that what you think atheism is about? You are a very ignorant person. Atheism is only the disbelief in a god or gods. You, yourself, are an atheist when it comes to believing in Zeus or Apollo. Christians don't believe in all the gods, just one. Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians do. See how simple that is?
"So we have Paul giving us a set of logical steps about why he believes stealing is wrong. In so doing he admits that he feels the influence of some inherent natural law that proscribes theft. Where did that come from?"
It comes from the human brain.
Where do you think the Law of Moses came from? It also came from the human brain, not from a god.
You grow tired of this because you have no leg to stand on. One of the most relieving aspects of atheism is no longer having to support postitions that either have no evidence to support them, or are opposed by insurmountable evidence.
Paul
Hey, Neo.
Ever hear of Mr. Spock, and logic?
Who cares where good values come from? If someone is ethical and credits atheistic logic for his behavior, but is still doing good, he's part of the solution rather than the problem, and should be applauded. I also believe in giving credit to people who do good and cite God as their motivation. The object is to get as many people as possible practicing good ethics and morality, regardless as to their motivational source.
BB
Byker Bob said...
Hey, Neo.
"Ever hear of Mr. Spock, and logic?
Who cares where good values come from? If someone is ethical and credits atheistic logic for his behavior, but is still doing good, he's part of the solution rather than the problem, and should be applauded."
The old "Golden Rule" applies to one and all. Jesus didn't invent it, Buddha recited it 500 years before Jesus supposedly lived. Not only that, but it has existed for time immemorable - no gods needed.
Corky,
Do you believe in God?
If your answer is no, you are an atheist.
An atheist is one who believes the tenet of "atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
Atheism then, is a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.
If the answer is you don't know if God is or not, you really are an agnostic. An agnostic is a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist).
If you are an atheist and are not mistaken, your nihilistic existence is of no significance in eternity.
If you believe in God and are mistaken, your belief in God may be of some comfort until you die, but your mistaken belief will be of no meaning or significance.
If you believe in God and are not mistaken, there could be a significant upside to believing in a God who really does exist.
On the basis of simple logic, then, it is therefore illogical to be an atheist.
Your definition of nihilism was inadequate to the point Neo presented on irrational atheism. Try this definiton:
Nihilism is (Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other. The term nihilism is sometimes used to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.
One of the major problems of atheism is dealing with the problem of ultimate good and ultimate evil, and of defining morality in a greater context other than just on a scientific set of balance scales. Without God, man is left to the law of survival of the fittest; the law of the jungle; then, the natural law, utilitarianism, hedonism, the golden rule, or some other unsatisfying moral emphasis.
Irrational atheism denies God. It replaces God with man as his very own god; looking into the mirror as his very own superman, who has no need of God, having everything under perfect human control. The atheist believes if only religion could be made illegal, it would be paradise.
Atheistic materialism tried to militantly outlaw existence in the belief of God or any religion, and look at the devastation of what happened. Karl Marx and his failed atheistic materialism certainly turned out to be more of an intoxicating opiate of fabrications more than any religion of the people he feared.
....... I am from Quaker stock as well and the Quaker's did not emphasize the Bible much. Quakerism has a strong [mystical], experiential component. You do not find Quaker commentaries and Bible helps.
My wife and after leaving the WCG for good in 1997, decided to give the Quakers a go around Thanksgiving time.
What a shock to people being used to overbearing Armstrongist preachers shouting at them!
The service consisted entirely of people seated quietly in the audience until someone is moved by the spirit to speak. Not aware of their traditions, we kept wondering what to do next.
Quakers spend a lot of time in contemplation.
But having said that, during the break they were very hospitable and quite glad to have new people visiting. They were trying to sign us up for one protest or another that most Fundamentalists would call leftist.
Quakers care very much about equality and human rights and peace. I didn't get the sense that it was a religion of hypocrits, you either were into it or not. I wish fundamentalists spent as much time contemplating the outcomes of their political beliefs.
I felt more comfortable with Unitarians than I did the Quakers. But that was probably because it was a more familar "sermon" based worship service. I think maybe a meditating Buddhist would feel right at home in Quakerism. Its certainly not about the preacher as center of attention! HWA and Quakerism probably mixed like oil and water.
Anonymous said...
Corky,
Do you believe in God?
If your answer is no, you are an atheist.
RIGHT
An atheist is one who believes the tenet of "atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
WRONG
Atheism then, is a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.
RIGHT
The rest of the half-truths, lies and misconceptions contained in the post doesn't matter: God doesn't exist, so arguments in favor of gods existing mean no more than arguments in favor of the existence of invisible pink unicorns.
By the way, demons, goblins, witches, sorcerers, necromancers, satyrs, cockatrices, angels, devils, ghosts, leprechauns, fairies, heaven, hell, vampires, werewolves, gremlins and poltergeists don't exist either.
Tom>>"Every man," including Stinger? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!<<
Stinger>>Yes, including me. No shooting needed.
And including you.<<
This is rather presumptuous of you! I suggest you speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves, for some of us seek to understand and DO the will of God, you may be shocked to learn!
Stinger>>The only difference between people like me and you is, I admit that I do that which is right in my own eyes.<<
You don't do what is right in your own eyes at all. You are led by the spirit that works in the children of disobedience to hate God and his people.
Stinger>>For this is the only way a truly rational person can live.<<
Are you serious? How can a mind fill with such vitriol be described as rational?
Stinger>>Which is why religionists are so irrational. Which is also why cults like Armstrongism flourish.<<
Indeed, most religionists are irrational, especially those who worship idols of their own making. On the other hand, those who are called by God are the only rational people on earth, you may be devastated to learn.
Tom
Corky,
You stated in your post "God doesn't exist..."
How is it that your belief, your atheistic doctrine that God doesn't exist is any LESS of a real belief that God DOES exist?
Suppose I believe there IS a lion over the hill. Suppose you believe there is NO lion over the hill. You cannot logically claim my belief there is a lion over there, while your lack of belief in any lion is not a held belief just like mine, in and of itself.
Your unbelief in God, or godless atheism, is just that, a belief. You either believe in something, or you believe in nothing. Godless atheism is your religious belief. You cannot prove the nonexistence of God. Godless atheism is a man made religion.
What is the difference between a nominal Christian and an atheist. On a clear day, with good light, they look very much the same. Other than some peripheral academic ruminations on the existence of a god of some sort, their practical lives are startlingly similar.
Both have very little commitment to a belief system. Nominal Christians really know very little about Christianity and very little about the Bible. Just as atheists seem to know very little about the deeper implications of atheism. One atheist contributor to this blog apparently has never heard about the connection between atheism and moral nihilism (go to Wikipedia and find the article on "atheism" and click on the link for "moral nihilism"), got a simplistic and inadequate definition of nihilism from a dictionary (one of HWA's favorite exegetical techniques) and then cluelessly asserted that I was "ignorant".
Nominal Christians claim they believe in God but behave as if they did not. In pragmatic daily life, this places them very near to atheistic point on the spectrum. Atheists claim they do not believe in God but then inexplicably demonstrate a predilection for broadly accepted morality, which, like nominal Christians, they are willing to violate without conscience if a practical need arises. (The easily made observation that humans are the only creatures on the planet that moralize seems to be totally lost on them -- something that Dawkins, with his fertile and sometimes droll imagination, has yet to explain.) The combined effect is to make nominal Christians and atheists neighbors, not at the level of philosophical cosmetics, maybe, but pragmatically.
And, of course, both like to practice a little religious behavior when it suits them. On Sunday for the nominal Christians and in debate for atheists. It usually amounts to a sanctimonious dedication to principle and commitment to a noble cause even in the face of persecution, etc. Like the wish expressed here that all the atheists would come out of the closet. In our society this would be the biggest non-event in history. After all, our science lecture rooms at every level of education are already dominated by atheistic teaching. But its nice to pretend, I guess. Makes you feel religious.
If there were a zoo dedicated to all the species of non-believers, I think the habitats for atheists and nonimal Christians would be right next to eachother. Maybe for the typical zoo-goer the markings on the two species would be so similar, an astute and experienced guide would have to point out the subtle and inapparent distinctions.
-- Neo
"What is the difference between a nominal Christian and an atheist."
One believes in imaginary beings, and the other doesn't.
Paul
"You cannot prove the nonexistence of God. Godless atheism is a man made religion."
Don't have to prove the non-existence of God, that's a negative.
However, you have to prove the existence of God if you say God exists, because that's a positive statement.
Can you prove there is a lion over the hill? If there is one there you can. Should I believe there is one though until you prove it? No.
Final Score:
Christians: 12
Atheists: 0
"Final Score:
Christians: 12
Atheists: 0"
Sure, if it pleases you.
Paul
Anonymous said...
Final Score:
Christians: 12
Atheists: 0
Final Score:
Inquisitors burned: 0
Atheists: Thousands
Herbalists: Thousands
Jews: Thousands
Others: Thousands
All the victims of Christians: Hundreds of Millions
You don't do what is right in your own eyes at all. You are led by the spirit that works in the children of disobedience to hate God and his people.
First of all, I don't hate your god because it does not exist.
Second of all, your little cult group is not among "his" people.
We are ALL people of the true God, the Creator.
But if you continue to stand at the front of the synagogue, blathering that your theology makes you somebody, while you think the rest of us are mere "pagans" you are going to have a long, long ahead of you going into the KOG. If indeed, you are in that line at all.
Have a nice Feast of Booze, and don't forget to build your booth this year. I hear that the P.A.B.C. folks can use you righteous ones up there to carry building supplies. Your own, that is. :-)
Would it surprise anybody to learn that the Romans considered the early Christians to be atheists?
Why?
Because Christians did not believe in the Roman pantheon of gods.
There's a lesson on semantics in there somewhere.
Now, I have never been an atheist. I have, in the past, been agnostic. Agnostics take the position that you simply can't know from the evidence surrounding you in the real world whether or not God exists.
Of course, you can't see the wind, either. You can, however, see the effects which the wind has. I wouldn't consider people who believe in wind to be superstitious.
BB
"But if you continue to stand at the front of the synagogue, blathering that your theology makes you somebody, while you think the rest of us are mere "pagans" you are going to have a long, long ahead of you going into the KOG. If indeed, you are in that line at all."
Please read Burton Mack's
"The Christian Myth" and
"Who Wrote the New Testament?"
There are lots of knowledgeable folks who realize the most of modern Christianity is myth.
Whereas Judaism has a strong basis in history. Judaism is the basis of the genuine Jesus Movement.
Jesus was an observant Jew. He kept Holy Days.
And by the way, Paul never existed; what he taught is not genuine.
"I wouldn't consider people who believe in wind to be superstitious."
I don't believe in wind. Wind simply is. It exists.
Paul
The recurring theme here is that atheists, becuase they do not believe in Jehovah, believe in "nothing." The implication is that this "nothing" entails no morals, no ideals, no perceptions, no observations, no thoughts, no comtemplation, ect. Nothing.
I would like someone to explain this for me. How exactly does this work? I mean, would the same label be made if I state that I do not believe in Zeus?
Paul
Paul, what are your feelings concerning Xenu?
Xenu never existed. *sigh* I guess I am axenuist now. *sob* I believe in nothing! *sob*
(Hangs self in the closet)
Well, this is interesting. A topic on Bible translations turns into a scrum on atheism. Isn't there any else that finds it ironic that former COGers that claim to be atheists hang out in a religion oriented blog? Just how committed to atheism are these people?
BTW, I prefer the NIV, just to keep in topic.
VonHowitzer
Stinger,
One of the wonders of the way Feasts are calculated by most of the Armstrongists [actually by the Jews who know they are wrong] is that the original calculations were off by just about a quarter hour per year. This means that every 216 years plus or minus a bit, the calculated day of the Spring Equinox is a day later. This year, the Jews figured that the Spring Equinox was April 6/7.
This has all sorts of interesting implications: As time goes on, the Fall Festival falls later and later in the year. In 2,160 years, it will be 10 days later. In 21,600 years it will be 100 days later.
This means that if time goes on, and it will, that the Fall Festival will be held from December 25th through January 1st.
This will be so very convenient for Armstrongists because they can keep the Feast and no one will think anything of it. Feast gifts for the kids will look like Christmas Presents. And as for the Last Great Day, it will give new meaning to "the Feast of Booze" as everyone else begins the New Year that day. Children will not have to beg to get out of school.
Of course, it can't last. Eventually, the Fall Festival will be in the Spring, except of course, south of the equator where it will be kept in the Fall season.
Eventually, we will come full circle and the Feast of Tabernacles will be in the Fall again, but that will be a few years off from now.
The Armstrongists have decided that the Jews have the authority, so they will have to keep it even though it seems a bit awkward at times.
"The Armstrongists have decided that the Jews have the authority, so they will have to keep it even though it seems a bit awkward at times."
So then... let's all buy into the "myths" and let's let all the pastors tell us what to do. We can be jolly and loyal right wing conservative Christians.
We can all join hands and say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" and each week dutifully observe the "day of the Sun".
We can continue the time honored traditions centered around trees and eggs and other such lovely things.
Yes, by all means, let them tell us what to do so that we can dutifully observe all the "myths".
Right...
All these different translations of the Bible, like the KJV, NEB, NIV, but where is the BIB? [The British Israelism Bible]
"Isn't there any else that finds it ironic that former COGers that claim to be atheists hang out in a religion oriented blog?"
Oh, that's me favorite! Or, "What are you doing here (on a Sabbath keeping forum)", or "what do you want," or, "You don't believe in what Mr Armstrong taught so why are you even here?!!?!"
A couple of years ago two men on an Armstrongite forum kept spouting the most ridiculous nonsense...about how the Bible equates the Ten Commandments with the Old Covenant, and what the requirements of the Law were, and such. Most of my journey out of Armstrong Cult-ism is due to critical thinking...an assesment of what I thought at the time was fact (Bible) compared to what I had been taught...but I cannont dicount the part those two men played in helping me get on the road.
Paul
Douglas said:
This means that if time goes on, and it will, that the Fall Festival will be held from December 25th through January 1st.
Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. The Jewish calendar is slowly drifting out of date, just as the Julian one was, before the Catholic Church decided to put new rules in place in 1582. I wrote a somewhat lengthy article about this, which can be found at:
www.hwarmstrong.com/calendar-jewish-calculations.htm
I've been a student of different calendars for a long time. It's a fascinating topic, me thinks.
And the whole point of the matter is that the Jews haven't kept their festivals on the correct date in a long, long time. Not most of them anyway. And since Armstrong was a closet Sadducee in this matter, neither did the WCG, and neither do most of his offshoot cults.
But I don't suppose this really bothers most of the Armstrongologists out there any more than it does about employing their servants on the Sabbath. Or make believing that Motel 6 really is a booth. Or the dozens of other ways they shade the meaning of the Law to their convenience and advantage.
It's the same old pick & choose, part-time law keeping I've been writing about for years. They may as well go ahead and drink the orange juice, just like the Herbster was reported to have done, on their Day of Atonement for all the difference it makes.
At any rate, the Jews have had not a few hearty laughs as they watch these goims pretending they are also Jews, complete with their fake yarmulkes and matzo balls on their also misplaced "Night to be much observed" (the actual Jewish Passover). It really is a sight to behold -- these fake Jews trying to out Jewish the Jews! And they will be at it once again in just a few days as they march off to the Feast of Booze, and to the spot where whatever cult guru they are following tells them that "God" has placed his name -- for this year anway. :-)
"It's the same old pick & choose, part-time law keeping I've been writing about for years."
Absolutely. The Law Lite. The Law- Now With 40% Less Commands.
If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and believe that you are to live by it, then you must deal with the description of the Law found in scripture:
The Law is a single entity. It is not divided up into parts, with some parts no longer in effect, while some remain.
There is no "spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law." There is only the Law.
If you are to observe the Law, you are to observe all of it. Not part of it, or what you deem is reasonable to observe.
Of course, I always get the incredibly ironic response- "you are taking the Law too literally and do not understand the intent/spirit behind it."
Paul
When you get right down to it, you gotta choose the KJV.
I mean, that's what the fundies use and it's never gone out of print in 400 years of abuse.
Where would the Mormons be without it? Even the BoM is in the King's English. One would think that the angel Moroni would have at least known the American English of the 1800s and we know Joe Smith did. So, how fake can one get?
Dost not thou knowest thine ass from thy camel?
"We can continue the time honored traditions centered around trees and eggs and other such lovely things."
I know I am....bought decorations last night. I am going to celebrate Christmas/Saturnalia/Yule this year for the first time, and my family and I are going to have a damn good time. I'll think of all of God's True People, in their homes, alternatively trying to ignore or grumbling about Christmas. And I'll get a warm feeling from it, too.
I need to order a big tree this week. As far as decorations go, I believe there are instructions in Jeremiah 10.
Paul
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video7.htm
Excellent video dealing with Mormons...and Muslims...and Christians.
Paul
As for the Feast running from Xmas to New Years, it is time for our traditional Festival Songs:
On the Fifth Day of the Feast,
My True Love gave to me,
Five casual shirts,
Four tube socks,
Three pairs of shoes,
Two piece suit,
'Cause we couldn't afford them the rest of the year!
The discussion of which Bible is best is so very appropriate to the Armstrongists' penchant for pick and choose, mix and match religion. It's a mish mash of mismatched doctrines.
Do tithe. It doesn't matter that the Temple System doesn't exist any more. Let the xCoG ministry steal from the Levitical priesthood merely because it doesn't exist any more and the money absolutely must go somewhere! I mean that's logical. A physical nation, one nation under God, a true theocracy [or one that pretends to be], can demand tithes and offerings dependent upon the increase of produce because God gave the Israelites the land as an inheritance [never minding that they drove out the inhabitants all by themselves... mostly]. Because God gave the land, the people had to give back 10% of anything more they grew than what was just a financial wash.
Enter the New Covenant, the Sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of the Temple [exactly 40 years after Jesus died, if you know how to count the calendar dates]. Gone. All gone. The Temple System was no more. Even the Jewish Rabbis know this. But not the pick and choose, mix and match Armstrongists. Oh, no! You must tithe, and not just tithe, but tithe on wages. That was never part of the deal, but it suited Herbert Armstrong just fine as he had his cup of coffee and donut on the Day of Atonement to keep up his strength while the widow ladies faithfully afflicted their souls. It was just another sacrifice to be made for the Church Corporate, that soulless despotic psychopath it / thing to be worshiped in idolatry for the benefit of the blasphemies of an heretic, now dead false prophet.
And according to the prophecies of Scripture, the blood money was taken as an inheritance by the ungodly through the sale of the House for God in Pasadena and the other accumulated paraphernalia of a profligate old coot who lusted after the silver, gold, crystal and other ostentatious riches a dumbed down congregation could provide him.
And so it is, in this mix and match, pick and choose religion, that mish mash of the cafeteria style Old Covenant in New Covenant disguise, that only a small part of the whole law and the curse thereof is kept. It may well be that 40% is overly generous, everything considered.
"I know I am....bought decorations last night. I am going to celebrate Christmas/Saturnalia/Yule this year for the first time, and my family and I are going to have a damn good time. I'll think of all of God's True People, in their homes, alternatively trying to ignore or grumbling about Christmas. And I'll get a warm feeling from it, too."
Good for you! You are unashamedly celebrating a pagan custom that has been brought into "The Christian Myth". Better that then stealing from you neighbor.
Enjoy :)
"Enjoy :)"
I will, unashamedly. I'll teach my children, as we sit around the pagan tree, with ham sandwiches, the ancient pagan susperstitious origins of the holiday, and how it was recently incorporated into another superstitious religion.
Paul
((Well, this is interesting. A topic on Bible translations turns into a scrum on atheism. Isn't there any else that finds it ironic that former COGers that claim to be atheists hang out in a religion oriented blog? Just how committed to atheism are these people?
BTW, I prefer the NIV, just to keep in topic.
VonHowitzer))
Very good one KMS!!! I had to have a good laugh. The reason why these people are here is, they too are on a mission. A mission to get people more into doubt as opposed to faith.
Yes, to try to stay on topic, I also like the NIV translation (it is one of the most easy to read and less awkward translations written).
"I will, unashamedly. I'll teach my children, as we sit around the pagan tree, with ham sandwiches, the ancient pagan susperstitious origins of the holiday, and how it was recently incorporated into another superstitious religion."
That is what makes this country GREAT! Our diversity and acceptance of others choices.
Lot's of folks keep Christmas as a purely secular holiday. It is a very lovely holiday.
Hey Paul...
I'm not saying you shouldn't be here, I'm just saying your atheism isn't as convincing as you may think. I'd say the same for the suddenly MIA Dennis Diehl, who would find a way to turn a response on any topic into an *long* essay against the Bible, religion, or whatever suited his fancy.
Problem is that people are always a bit suspicious of those that make such radical changes in their belief system. Pick just about any politician you like and you'll find changes in position that most people wouldn't do - yet they espouse to get votes. Did they really believe what they said they did back when? Or do they really believe what they say they do now? In your case, it doesn't help me believe you truly are an atheist if you hang out in a theology student's blog site. It makes me wonder if you're really her to be convinced against what you currently believe - or perhaps you're just a mean and nasty sob that likes to be aggravating and annoying.
I do, however, believe that you gained your current beliefs by critical thinking. I saw an example of that with a man named Herbert Armstrong.
Nothing wrong with critical thinking - it's just not enough.
VonHowitzer
"Problem is that people are always a bit suspicious of those that make such radical changes in their belief system."
I understand what you are saying, and if I had "converted" to another "belief system," such as Islam or Wiccan or even New Age mush, then you would have a valid point. But I have changed belief systems. Atheism is not a belief system or religion just as disbelieving in leprechauns is not a rligion or belief system. I am the same person as I was, with only one difference...I no longer believe that gods exist. This is shedding of a perception or belief, not picking up a new one. And I have done so by reason, critical thinking, and observation. It is no different than coming to the conclusion that global warming is/isn't real after all after a lengthy review of the data.
Paul
"But I have changed belief systems."
I meant, "have not," in the sense that I am changing one belief system for another.
Paul
"But I have changed belief systems."
Paul:
But isn't the above in fact what you really meant?
You exchanged a belief in God to a 100% surefire belief in "there is no God". You converted to belief in atheism as the ultimate belief. Your confident, zealously held personal belief now is - "there is no God" - which is the first commandment of atheism.
Okay, I admit it guys. You got me. Atheism is nothing more than another religion. All humans cannot exist on their own without a religion; they all have to believe in something. It's axiomatic. Atheism is just a security blanket that I am using right now; I'll probably dabble in some other pseudo-religion as my tastes change. I apologize for trying to pretend to be rational; I'm not. Atheism also looked like the cool thing to do, and I really want to be thought of as smart and hip.
Sincerely,
Paul
Yeah Paul,
Seems a shame, doesn't it, when adult men and women will call demonstrable truth blasphemy and will hang onto myths that are thousands of years old?
Oh well, we couldn't even make them believe the world was round until Magellan sailed around it in order to prove it.
They have always had to be dragged, kicking and screaming all the way. into acceptance of truth. Whether that truth was the earth orbiting the sun, the existence of germs, the existence of atoms - whatever! They are just a millstone on the neck of normal, intelligent people.
Post a Comment