h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Della, you have constantly stated that George W Bush is not a Christian. Why is that?


az

Just in case you missed it from previous page...

"Hey, Member, twice in one day, hey, I am answering you! What's that about? "

Well, initially it seems to be about you mistaking me for someone else, but hey ho.

"<<"I do not say such people are ...wrong about what constitutes a Christian! ">>
I stand by that statement."

... even though I've clearly shown it to be wrong. How unsurprising. Do you EVER engage your brain?

"You conveniently left out the part where I said I do not say such people are not Christians... and I do not say it."

And you conveniently fail to understand that the issue is NOT what YOU say. The issue is what THEY say.

THEY - the literalists - would insist that you, as a non-literalist, are NOT a Christian. We used to have the perfect example here on h2g2, in the person of Justin the Preacher. In Justin's eyes, you are a tool of Satan, not a Christian at all, and you can whine and bleat and stamp your tiny foot all you like, you won't change his mind.

So, let's take this point by point in the hope you can understand:

1. HE would say you are NOT a Christian.
2. YOU would say you ARE a Christian.
3. Therefore, you would say he is wrong about what constitutes a Christian.

I'm really not sure how much more simply I can express this for you.

"They are Christians, I am a Christian. I disagree with them on a matter of interpretation."

No. You disagree with them on your identity as a Christian. You say you are one, they say you're not. That is much more than mere "interpretation", I'd say.

"You have your knickers in a knot (I'm sure you'd prefer the Americanism "panties in a bunch, but you can't always get what you want)"

Actually, the correct English expression is "get your knickers in twist". I'll forgive your ignorance of English since you don't actually live in England. (I'm curious why you think I might prefer an Americanism. You're surely not under the impression that I'm in some way connected to the USA, are you? I mean, surely your wrongness has limits, dear...)

"about non-creationist Christians, because they're not so easy to ridicule, but see above!"

On the contrary, non-Creationist Christians are quite as easy to ridicule. Creationists are at least consistent, even if the book they cling to is not. Non-creationists can't even decide what it is they believe, and have to decide line by line which bits of the Bible are True, and which bits are just fairy stories.

"If you had any acquaintance with the study of literature,"

Sorry, can't reply to that, laughing too hard...

"you'd understand quite clearly the uses of figurative language, and how it's possible to tell what's meant literally and what's not!"

Tears running down my cheeks now. You really are priceless. Thank you.

H.

<>
No, the mistake isn't mine!
<>
Yes, Mmmm, I wonder why? It's got something to do with who you really are in your splendid multiplicity, *dear*...
<.
This means you actually don't have an answer!
You have your mind made up, and that's all there is to it. Well, it's as always, a waste of my time answering you... Ta Ta For Now!

azahar, haven't we been over this until I am blue in the face? I thought the link I provided from the political humour website would have gone some way to explaining it - or did you not actually look? Christian is as Christian does...

"No, the mistake isn't mine! "

Saying it's so don't make it so, unless you're god. Are you god, Della?

"<>
Yes, Mmmm, I wonder why? It's got something to do with who you really are in your splendid multiplicity, *dear*... "

Now, I'm afraid, you have *completely* lost me.

I'm an Englishman.

I was born in England. I have lived my entire life in England. I have never been further north than Scotland, further east than Salzburg, further south or west than Tenerife. In my entire life I have set foot outside Europe once, for a single day in Tangiers when I was six. I have never, ever visited the USA and have no plans to. I have no relatives in the US.

So, not for the first time, I'm afraid you may have me mixed up with someone else (mind you, since you apparently have a hard time remembering the difference between football and rugby, this is not a great surprise...).

"<.
This means you actually don't have an answer! "

Actually, no, it doesn't. It means I do have an answer, but I don't believe for a moment you could understand it. Given your inability to understand the desperately simple concept I've spelled out three times above, it would be a waste of time.

"You have your mind made up, and that's all there is to it. "

Again with the projection. There is a dogmatic, close-minded ignorant person posting to this thread, Adelaide/Della - but it is *provably* not me.

H.

Della, the link was to a 'joke thread'.

You have not ever explained how both you and GWB can call yourselves Christian with you saying that you most definitely are one and he most definitely isn't (in your opinion).

<>

Say what?


az

<looks at Della and Hoo, thinksabout Fther Ted and father Dougal, "one lat time *small*.....far_away"

Small... far away.



H.

Righty Ho appy, a couple of points:-

i) I play Football not Rugby, much as though I find watching the chasing of the egg quite entertaining (even if I dont really understand the rules) football (soccer in some places) is my game. Take a look

http://public.fotki.com/Ferrettbadger/greenbank_vs_nelsons/

I am the slightly overweight guy in the yellow.

As to the Hoo/Member/Number thing

Member and Number were get this the same account, just with the nickname changed. Regardless of whether or not you think Member and Hoovooloo are the same person we are only talking about two accounts here ,

<>
It's simple! Christians can be judged by their behaviour, and the "joke" pointed out the huge gaps between Christ's teachings and Bush's behaviour...
GWB may well be a Christian, but his actions don't bear that out.

"Christians can be judged by their behaviour"

So a Christian can be judged by their adherence to these bits, or those bits, or the bits that contradict the other bits? Which bits?

I'd say Bush's conduct is in keeping with the tradition of King David, who among many other fun adventures bought his first wife with 200 foreskins of the enemy (twice the going price!).

<>

And Christian homosexuals would probably say something similar about you, Della.

It seems there is no clear way to define what a Christian is. Which is why I often find this term quite meaningless.


az

As a philosopher I describe myself as a post Kantian.

I recognise

1) That this is a very *loose* term.
2) That I can't actually define it in any detailed fashion.
3) That other philosophers may disagree with my usage.
4) That no one of us can lay claim to be correct, and the others wrong.

All I really want is an admission that the same could be said of the word Christian.

And no, I don't intend to stop calling myself a post Kantian.

Noggin

Since the beginning, Christians have been defined by their love for other people. That is the core of Christ's message.

Love for other people from the beginning? Was that when God was flooding the earth, or when every firstborn male in Egypt was being slaughtered? Or when the rightful inhabitants of Palestine were being slaughtered, leaving only the women and animals? Or when the angel Satan was allowed to torture Job in order for God to prove a point?

Even Christ's message is garbled. Love? "I bring not peace but the sword"? He berated his own disciples on a regular basis. He cursed a fig tree because he was hungry and there were no figs on it (they were not in season). He rejected his own family.

And if Christians are defined for their love of other people, their behavior does not bear this out. Most Christians look at outsiders as either savages to save or objects of scorn.

Chritians are follower of Christ. When God was flooding the Earth, etc., there were no Christians.

You can point to individual quotes in the bible all you want (the actual meaning of which can be debated ad infinitum), the undeniable overall message from Christ was one of love for you fellow (wo/hu)man.

Yes that is right, as far as I remember that was the meesage in the little book.

Yet we have people who openly speak of their hate for fellow humans and they are still christians by their own definition. Some of those people taught me about christianity, but did not feel so enamoured of its message that they actually foolowed it, partly why I stopped attending church.

Who actually decides this matter of who is and who aint christian, and just how do they draw a line between a druid rationalist or satanist who expresses and act in ways that show real love for their fellow humans and animals?


one love <rainbow.

People have a remarkable capacity for doublethink. A label can have multiple meanings too. In my book however, if a Christian preaches hate, and has hate in their heart (e.g., the dispicable Jerry Falwell) then they are not Christian. They can call themselves whatever they want.

I am an atheist, and my wife is a daughter of a priest and had studied theology/philosophy extensively. She said something interestng once, that, according to Christian theology, I would go to heaven because I am in all intents and purposes a "good Christian". (She is not a Christian either).

It stands to reason, Blatherskite, that King David can't be called a Christian. Pre-Christian is all he was, and this argument applies to your posting further down as well. God's dealing with humans changed radically and irrevocably after Jesus' sojourn on earth.

Actually, it didn't change at all. I've already discussed how Jesus reinforced OT law, and I haven't seen a refutation of that, so it stands. Additional lack of support for this loving Christianity comes from the real father of the religion... Paul.

One example of many of how Paul loves women: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." - First Corinthians 14:34-35

This bit is pretty lovely... regarding widows under 30: "But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan." - 1Timothy 5:11-15

Here is how loving Paul is to gays: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:26-32

Here is how Paul loves Jews: "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." 1Thessalonians 2:14-16

A very loving religion indeed...