“Can we agree to label you a “secular humanist-moral relativist-Darwinist-quasi-atheist”?”
Nope. Admittedly, I am hard to quantify. I am an arch-conservative who lives by the moral standards of a devout Christian - with a few exceptions. One is that I believe people who are proven by medical science to be beyond hope should be able to choose to be euthanised when their suffering becomes too great to bear. My father was a devout Catholic, a Dr. and discovered his cancer himself. He had every treatment known to medical science at that time (1977-78) and even volunteered for the then-experimental-but-now-standard cis-platin chemotherapy drugs. He knew they would not save him - but did so in the hopes that the data would be of some use to someone else in the future. He never complained to us and was always cheerful and positive. One day I noticed that he looked sicker than usual, and soon after that he stopped whistling. And stopped being positive and cheerful. He used to go around the house happily whistling to himself all the time. He was really good at it and very musically inclined. He could hear a song once and then play it on the piano, for instance. Then one day it stopped. I knew things were not going to go well at that point. He was fortunate that the Dr.s that were treating him were his friends on the staff at the same hospital that he had worked in. Towards the end they kept him sedated with morphine and he went in his sleep. I cannot describe to you what he looked like near the end - he’d lost half his body weight and the cancer disfigured him. I have never gotten over that. I know that I would never have the courage to face what he did - nor should I have to. Nor should anyone. Any possible belief in “God’s mercy” that I could have had in life, died with my father. This does not mean that I am an amoral person, at all. I also think abortions in the 1st trimester should be allowed, but severely frowned upon. Late-term abortions (unless there is a valid medical reason for it - like health of the mother or the foetus will be severely handicapped) and partial-birth abortions make me physically ill. I hate homosexuality - that makes me sick as well. It should be obvious to any decent person that it is an abomination and a disgusting perversion. So no, I am not a moral relativist at all. I am also a big 2nd-amendment supporter and a single-issue voter on 2nd-amendment rights. My wife and I both detest the disgusting hip-hop and anything-goes culture and hate the language being used in movies and in secular fashion today, as well as the general utter lack of morality. I am not a Darwinist - that is a hate-label attributed to people that believe in the mountains of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by those that do not. Darwin’s theories are almost 170 years old - the evidence is much more complete and compelling now than then. As for the quasi-atheist part - well, not really. There is no evidence for the existence of God that is convincing, as there is no certain proof of his non-existence. I guess it would be more accurate to call me extremely skeptical on the subject of the existence of God rather than an outright atheist; atheists insist that there is no God and they have no absolute proof that this is the case. I cannot lie to myself to so I am just highly skeptical. Many people who are intrinsically amoral do espouse atheism - in order to justify their improper behaviors - communists and homosexuals for example. I am disgusted by this kind of rationalization. Being an atheist does not mean that you are morally bankrupt by any means. In terms of morality, I would guess that nearly all of the things that morally outrage you would morally outrage me. The main difference between us as I see it, is who we think is responsible for our lives. I say we are. You would say we have to bend to God’s will. Let’s assume for the moment that you are right. There are over 50 different versions of the Bible – which one is the actual, correct version that God wants us to follow? And how can we be sure?
In my writing I study the scriptures in several languages. Interestingly, the more languages in which one reads the scriptures, the more the essence of the written 'epistles' shines, for the Spirit Who inspired the writers of the New Testament 'books' is the same for all of the writers! Here's an example.
In Paul's letters to the various churches he either established or help to establish and edify, Paul maintains one major theme: we are cleansed (in spirit) from our Sinful nature by the blood of Jesus The Christ, and we are then transformed in our soul --a life-long process changing mind, will, and emotions-- by the indwelling presence of God's Spirit, possible in our inner man because of the cleansing Jesus's blood accomplishes when we 'faithe' (act based upon belief and sustained by confidence in the promises of God) that He is sufficient for our need to be cleansed.
[A deeper, 'meaty' issue to explore when you have accepted Christ as personal Savior, is the one God includes in the Bible for our study and contemplation, 'works versus faith', and the historic process the early Christians went through as the issue bounced back and forth between Paul and Peter and James and the various Churches. I personally believe God included that issue in the Bible so we can study it and the outcome for our current edification.]
If you choose to test this series of notions, it will not matter which translation in which language, this theme will shine forth clearly, even when you read the letters written by Peter or the Gospels written by John, Mark, Mathew, or Luke. The reason for this is that the message IS the Gospel. The Gospel is administered by God's Spirit.
If you choose to do it, you can even trace the Gospel in the pages of the Old Testament, whether read in Hebrew or in Greek (as in the 3rd Century BC Septuagint). The reason this is possible is related to what scriptures Paul preached from ... he quotes the Septuagint often and precisely.
To cut to the chase, there is not really conflict in the Gospel as God's Spirit administers it through His Word, but men can and have made minor changes, such as when the Bible was translated from Latin and Greek to English in the day of King James; the word 'agape' is translated as charity and love, and a couple of other alternate English terms, but the message remains clear, yet when one digs into the Greek and sees that 'agape' (one of three Greek word for Love) is the word translated so many differnt ways in the English, the Gospel shines even more, not less. [A short Book, Colossians, will reveal this interesting tendency to translate 'agape' as charity in several places ... the King James compilers didn't like reapeating a word too often in a paragraph, though Paul repeated for empahsis.]
So, which 'version' is accurate? They all are! Read the modern language version first because it will flow quickly, leaving an impression which can be amplified by, then studying in, the NIV or King James or other modern version. What makes the newest versions so important is the stack of older manuscripts now available that were not known in the days of the King James translation. Which one does God want us to follow?... None of them, He wants you to follow Him, THEN be edified by His Word in any version you feel His voice coming through! It's so easy too, just whisper a thank you to God for dying on the Cross to redeem YOU and believe in your heart that God has in fact raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved, right then, not at some pie in the sky future, and by His loving presence you will have an astonishingly interesting and glorious life thereafter! That new life starts with your open affirmation that you believe God when you submit yourself for baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ... in any Christian denomination you choose to start your journey with. He will drierct you thereafter as you listen to His voice within. And this exact same thing has happened for hundreds of millions since 33 AD! Join the family, read the book.