Free will doesn't mean that everything you do is morally correct......

I'm an atheist. I was raised as a Christian, but it all just seemed kind of stupid to me, and I got really tired of it.

I belive in teachings of Buddha !

Yes but it means people should be allowed to make their own moral judgements unless they go against the set laws of the country they are in.

Yeah, if you are an atheist....If you are a believer in a particular religion however, you would follow the guidelines of that religion mostly because you believe it to be true and therefore want to follow them. I agree that you shouldn't condemn other people to damnation because of something they do, but that is one of those guidelines typically found in religions....

I am a Buddhist and Buddhist teaching cleared up my mind. However, I am not so keen venturing into Nirvana state..because the world have a lot to think and concerned about. Nirvana is all about free up your mind without thinking of anything else and be united with God forever...

But sometimes I thought of switching to Christianity too... because some of my friends are Christian and speaks about faith that have real assembalance to my life.

I'm Roman Catholic. Fun fun. =D

I'm an athiest. I see no evidence for religious figures, so...

Here is a list of Religious Figures, some of which have plenty of evidence for.

You know I meant things like Gods.
Y'know, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh/Jehova/Just-Plain-God. Guys like that.

I don't know unless you say it. I can't read your mind.

I thought it would be obvious. I may have phrased it badly, but I thought the intent was clear. >.<

you thought wrong.

Now tell us why you are an atheist and whether you are willing to entertain non-atheist ideals.

::EDIT:: The quote box is slightly mesmerizing....

I'm Catholic. Not a hardcore one by any means, and sometimes I may have my doubts, but I do consider myself of the Catholic faith.

I'm a Messianic (Judeo-Christian). I observe the new and the old testaments.

So... you don't eat pork and all that good stuff?

Yea that's part of it. Also don't eat shellfish nor catfish and a few other things. But not eating pork in southern portion of the U.S. seems to be blasphemes to most other Christians down here.

Out of curiosity, which day do you observe the Sabbath?

Friday Sundown to Saturday Sundown as described in the bible. I like questions, if you have any more feel free to ask.

I am officially Lutheran Evangelic (a protestant), but I really I am an agnostic cause I just can`t really decide about this stuff

Do you stone kids who are disrespectful to their parents as the Bible prescribes? Or Farmers who mix their crops?

I'm agnostic as well. To be honest, religion is the last thing on my mind D:

Nope, that's where the forgiveness issue of the new testament comes into play. The Messiah's crucifixion acted as an intermediate to God (Hbr. Elohim). Now instead of eye for an eye it's turn the other cheek. However, the ten commandments still apply, so a child should still obey their parents. I vaguely remember something involving the mixing of seeds. You seem educated enough, can you tell me the scripture you're referring to. Also is there actually an example of a farmer being stoned for mixing crops or a child being stoned for dis-respectfulness?

As for actual examples...I don't have any. People tend to be picky about what Biblical laws they observe.

If the whole city agrees to stone someone, then they must deserve it and far be it from me to disagree with a whole city unless there is just cause.

22.9 Does not say that the farmer should be stoned. What type of bible are you quoting? Just out of curiosity, I'm not saying your wrong but I'd like to see the context of the verse. Good questions though.

I went back and looked at the verse for mixing seeds. The practice was that a farmer should not plant different types of crops in one field. This practice is used today. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Mendeleev genetics or better yet just genetics. This verse has a very practical sense that farmers today still use. Cross pollination between two different plant does not yield fruit. Kind of like (example only) if a cat and a dog were to mate their would be no offspring. (Random Tangent) Bestiality, for example, is considered a sin, but when this does take place, no offspring is produced. I know I went off into too many directions at once, but the purpose for this law/rule was so that when insects pollinated the plants, fruit would actually be produced. There could be alternate reasons, but this is what I believe to be the case here. Thanks for the question.

This is what I use for my Biblical references.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/deu021.htm
I'm familiar with the cross pollination reasons, it's just that I recall there being a "rule" that two crops can't be sown in the same field yet farmers do do this. I think it could be one of those ones that depends on interpretation though.

Hmm... wasn't there a piece about also letting the land 'rest' so to speak every few years or so to replenish? Seems practical.

Lots of these small rules are more just reasonable guidelines of the time for things like keeping order and farming. I don't think there is any claim of sin as far as the farming rules go.

I'm curious about your keeping rules such as those restricting consumption of certain foods.

Christ did say that while did make it possible to forgive sins, that his salvation did not nullify the Mosaic laws. Where does that interpretation diverge with other sects of christianity, who see reason to move past things such as the hygenic laws set down in the old testament.

I'm not saying farmers don't sow different crops in the same field, but as a rule of thumb, most don't. Most importantly, however, stoning is not the consequence for disobeying the mixing of crops in a field.
That's very probable that this is a verse that depends on the interpretation from Hebrew into English. Much can be lost in translation. But it makes for a very interesting topic though.



About letting the land rest. You're right. The land was to be cultivated six years and on the seventh year it was to rest. Much like the sabbath, work for six days and rest on the seventh day.

I do not believe that the bible states that Christ did away with the Mosaic laws, hence the way I believe. But Christianity diverged into dozens of different sect all because of different people taking the translations of the bible out of context. Which is why I think we should all learn Hebrew and Greek. I know that's not practical. But I do wish that there were not so many different English translations of the bible.

I don't believe in god. Officially I am Evangelical Lutheran and I think that religions are interesting. But I just can't imagine that there would be a god.

The use of translations is not the main reason for so many denominations. Many of the different denominations were spawned from people who knew the original languages. The problem is not always in the translation but in general interpretation.

FYI - to counteract translation problems without knowing Greek - read several types of translations and know the basis of each of the translations (usually stated in the introductions of bibles) and synthesize them into the most coherent version.

Mosaic Law & Christ - I think that it is best to view Christ as being the fullfilment/completion of the Mosaic law. Where sacrifice is needed, Christ fills that gap, so there is the link. The law is not forgotten but rather completed in Christ.

The laws appear more to show a ruler/ruled covenant where the terms of life are stipulated by the ruler (God). In one theological view using the Christ idea above, the laws were designed to be impossible for any individual to fully follow thus requiring sacrifice. Temporary sacrifice provisions were allowed in the law, but Christ offers the permanent sacrifice to atone for any mistake in the law.

depending on how liberal your theology is, you can use this justification to allow you to not even think about the law. On the other hand, it also leaves open the law for those who want to be ultra-conservative. even worse is this justification to allow for the oscillation between conservative and liberal theology based on circumstance/opinion rather than conviction.

The law really is pointless as a measure of sin because even if a human could follow every law perfectly, that person would still have the inheritance of sin from Adam. Hence the pessimistic idea that humans are so pathetic that we're lucky god doesn't just wipe us off the face of the earth. Therefore we should thank god for his ability to tolerate our disgusting nature.

There's a better way than picking through different translations (which by the way can really throw a newcomer in the faith for a loop). Two books are needed. An Interlinear Bible (has the original languages and corresponding numbers) with Strong's Concordance numbers and a recent Strong's Concordance. Both, I believe, can be found at you local library. I strongly suggest against reading different translations for many reasons, but mainly because the person reading them could easily get confused as to what to believe out of which translation. Which, on a side note, is why I have some respect for the Koran; no matter how many followers come to Islam the Koran will never be translated in order to preserve the original meaning.

The interlinear method is really not a better way to deal with different tranlations. It may help somewhat with word meanings, but it certainly will not help with the equally important grammar. Also there is just the plain historical-linguistic considerations with any document that is 2k years old.

If you're so conserned about original meaning, then not only do you need to know Greek & Hebrew, but you must also have an advanced knowledge of ancient near eastern culture, literature & history for the old testament and alexandrian greek culture, literature etc... for the new testament.

This is not practical for the average person. I spent 2 years in grad school in part learning how to read the original text of the Bible and it is certainly not reasonable for the average person to be able to overcome translation issues. The interlinear method is very 1 dimensional and usually used poorly to begin with.

I never said this approach was perfect, but I do believe it is a better alternative then to pick through various translation by far. The interlinear method may be more one dimensional, but it's more structured than sitting at a desk with the Anylitical-Literal Translation, the American Standard Version, the Bishops, the Greek New Testament, the Jewish Publication Society, the King James Version, the Literal Translation version, the Modern King James Version, the Tanach, the Scriptures 98, and the Vulgate (among others). For someone trying to learn anything that is much too unstructured. And you cannot just tell them which bibles they should compare and which they should disregard because all of the bibles listed are excepted versions.

religion is always a touchy subject thats why i usually try and avoid it...but when it comes down to my personal beliefe's...i believe there is more out there and i dont know what it is or where it is..and hopefully i find out when i die..if not....i know i had one hell of a time...in my life....

RE: Translations:

I'll say that it's more important to know about historical context, social & intellectual context and literary genre than knowing an original greek/hebrew word for the study of biblical theology.

At one time I believed very much that knowing original language was best and could alleviate many theological/doctrinal disputes. Having actually studied the original languages, exegetical techniques, hermeneutics, theology and done translations myself, I have found that a knowledge of original languages will in no way clear up doctrinal/theological problems.

As such, the masses will always be dependent on others to disseminate doctrine and weigh that doctrine by its ability to appeal to reason rather than verifying the aspects of its sources. A reasonable person with an NIV or NKJV or NASV is certainly capable of making reasonable decisions about doctrine at the most pragmatic levels (the same rule applies to law, medicine and many other specialized areas of knowledge).

Reading and understanding todays newspaper is hard enough let alone trying to understand any document that is 2000 years old. It takes a lot more than just knowing the language to understand something (granted it is an important tool). So even the original language bible is still incomprehensible to anyone that does not work at understanding it (even if they are fluent in ancient greek and hebrew). I therefore appeal to uncertainty and leave open the debate for theological differences.

I agree to the point that knowing the historical and cultural context is as important as knowing the original wording. I'll give an example why I believe the original wording to be so important. There are other occurances, but this is the easiest one for people to understand. The King James Version (a widely excepted translation) bible states the following: Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. Simple enough. Anyone can recognize this as one of the ten commandments. The original Hebrew language reads the following: לא תרצח׃. Which says: You do not murder. To kill and to murder are not the same thing. There is a BIG difference between killing and murdering. If anyone happens to disagree, then perhaps a completely different debate should be created. Back to my original point. Not knowing how the original text was written could lead a person to believe that killing in self preservation is commanded against. According to the widely excepted KJV every time God commanded the Israelites to war, he was also commanding them to sin. Because we know that killing is the product of war. That said, unless there is a different point brought up, I'm done with this discussion.

Unfortunately I can't find my old software that had the BDB on it and would allow me to pull all instances of this word to check useage in other contexts, so I just now am looking this up manually in my Holladay concise hebrew lexicon. I also had to actually look up some of the cross references manually, which I hate (I'm not a huge fan of hebrew and really have forgotten nearly all of its grammar).

Anway, I can see that this word can potentially be translated both as "murder" or as "kill". Holladay lists it primarily as "kill" (in fact it's probably the qal imperfect form we see in this verse) with the piel as "murder".

The Brown-Driver-Briggs version may have more of a breakdown of useage in multiple contexts to review. But the fact that it is a matter of contextual research and not of pure definition shows me that the translation as "you shall not kill" is not wrong (by definition - ha ha). In my opinion, a neutral translator would probably put this as "kill" rather than "murder" as "kill" is open enough to allow the reader to use the larger context in order to determine whether it is the more restrictive type of killing (i.e. murder).

I respect your dedication to truth, but I think that a Jewish Rabbi has better incite into the Hebrew language than someone that "is not a huge fan of Hebrew."

that's not a refutation of my point and quite pathetic response in my opinion. This is not an issue of just Hebrew scholarship but of general tranlsation. Also to appeal to a Rabbi is to appeal not to word meaning, but interpretation.

Your next move is to challenge the value of the lexicon I used. Fact is that it is not unreasonable to use "kill" over "murder" in this case. It is a matter of scholarship and contextual interpretation to determine what word to use to translate not just based on pure definition.

Your interlinear technique is actually the same as using a translation except that the translation is extremely wooden. But the definitions they use are editorial/scholarly decisions and not just a fact of translation.

... so far i am the only Muslim here