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

Christianity isn't the bible.

The Constitution isn't the government, either. What's your point?

The point is that by quoting choice snippets of the bible, you're not seeing the big picture. It's easy to break down the bible and say "it's hateful because of verse X and Y", the bible is full of inconsistencies. Apart from the fact that the bible doesn't seem to work like that (infuriatingly), the teachings of Christ, the overarching message of the New Testament, and Christian theology agree that the defining trait of a Christian is love.

Well excuse me for not quoting the entirety of the Bible, but it is available elsewhere. And I give you the verses so you can look them up yourself to find out if I take them out of context.

People generally believe that the United States government is a democracy... and yet, when you look at the Constitution, the document from whence it derives its authority, you find that it isn't a democracy at all, but a republic.

The only way you can find out anything of any meaning in any human belief or construct is to go to the source. No matter what else Christians believe, all of them believe that the source of their authority is the Bible. When questioned on any individual point, they refer to it.

You cannot say that a religion which preaches hatred towards gays, women, and people who commit a rather bizarre collection of sins is somehow a message of love. This "message of love" nonsense is really only tied to a very small number of biblical passages. The selectivity is on their part, not on mine. Christians aren't the only ones doing it... Muslims have been trying to convince people that their religion is peaceful, conveniently ignoring the bits about jihad and the rewards for dying violently to harm the enemies of the religion.

As for defining trait... Christianity doesn't have one. And that is because it has so many influences from so many different contributors with their vastly divergent ideals that as a whole it is incoherent. Any claim you make about God, Jesus, or Christianity in general can be contradicted by passages in the Bible itself.

For instance... God is omniscient and omnipresent? Then why could he not find Adam & Eve after they ate the fruit? (Gen 3:8) Why does he have to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to verify what he has heard of those places? (Gen 18:20-21) Why does he have to ask Satan where he has been? (Job 1:7 and 2:2)

How about omnipotence? Well, he isn't stronger than iron chariots. (Judges 1:19)

Actually, I retract that statement about it having no defining trait. The one consistent defining trait in the NT and Christianity in general is resurrection and union with God through eternity... though there does appear to be some contradiction in how that is achieved. It's not about love, but about death and rebirth.

Try looking up the constitution of the UK. You can't. It's a mix of historical documents, convention, common law, and legal precedent. Not everything is as neatly set out as the US constitution. The bible is clearly more of a mish-mash (akin to the UK constitution) derived from vastly different cultures, people, perspectives, writing styles, etc. It's *bound* to contradict. I see your point about going to the source, but with the bible, it has multiple sources. Authority not only comes from the bible, but from the church, theology, and our culture's interpretation of all of it.


"For instance... God is omniscient and omnipresent? Then why could he not find Adam & Eve after they ate the fruit? (Gen 3:8) Why does he have to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to verify what he has heard of those places? (Gen 18:20-21) Why does he have to ask Satan where he has been? (Job 1:7 and 2:2)"

They're stories, myths. Lessons. God in those stories is whatever is necessary to get the point across.


Regards,

Blatherskite, I don't usually check your Bible citations, but your habit of using the King James means that I should... I checked the first passage you quoted in the NIV (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1TIM+5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) and got quite a different meaning and attitude from what you quoted...

"5: The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[1] 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan."
Quite different, isn't it?
The roll of widows was for social welfare purposes, and amounted to a kind of deaconate, hence verse 12 talking of the widows in question having "broken their first pledge".
You should surely be aware that the KJV is used by only some churches nowadays, and for good reason - it is often as difficult to understand for modern people as the plays of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson - fine for those who are students, but for the ordinary man and woman, a bit specialised.
(Of course, there are American fringe churches who insist on the KJV because it is the Bible Paul used! But that's Americans for you...

Blatherskite, I'd like to refer you to the commentary on the second of the passages you gave in the KJV before. See http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=1tim&chapter=5#4
A section...
<>

"Blatherskite, I don't usually check your Bible citations"

Surely not? You're surely not implying that you usually just knee-jerk react to things without bothering to check the facts?

"You should surely be aware that the KJV is used by only some churches nowadays, and for good reason...."

I'm perfectly aware that few churches cleave to the KJV, but the reason, I think, is more prosaic than simple linguistic difficulty. Modern churches prefer to use versions translated by people aware of modern hostility to religious intolerance. OBVIOUSLY they're going to a version which is "politically correct". They look like a bunch of intolerant, racist bigots if they insist on the most accurate version...

And surely nobody would *ever* accuse you of being an intolerant racist bigot, would they Della?

H.

"They're stories, myths."

Now you encounter the central problem.

You tell me Jesus existed, died on a cross for my sins, and rose from the dead. And you ask why I don't accept that it happened. To which my answer is:

They're stories, myths.

And the difference is?

H.

<< Modern churches prefer to use versions translated by people aware of modern hostility to religious intolerance. OBVIOUSLY they're going to a version which is "politically correct". They look like a bunch of intolerant, racist bigots if they insist on the most accurate version...>>
Politically correct? What a bizarre assertion!
<>
Well, only you! But then, you have issues, as even your friend Blinky admitted.

Politically correct. Bizarre assertion - true. True assertion - also true. Bizarre that a religion should find it necessary to subtly alter the text of its Bible in order to remain acceptable? Yes. But nevertheless true.

And yes, I have issues with ignorant racist bigots. And I'm definitely not the only one. Which is why you have the reputation you have... (which you affect to be ignorant of, but in fact know full well)

H.

If you can prove there's been any alteration, subtle or otherwise, I'll eat the hat I don't have - no, further, I'll buy a hat so I can eat it! Translations later than the KJV are different, yes, because they are more accurate, they are a consensus of most of the more reliable manuscripts. It's a strange sight - seeing a hard-out evangelical atheist insisting on the KJV, just like an Arkansian tent revivalist preacher!
<>
This reputation is in *your* head, Hoo. Maybe Blinky will back you up, but anyone who knows me or has known me longer than the 10 months I've had to do with Blinky, and the 11 months I've been aware of you and your alter, Member, knows it's your little problem, not mine!

Explain: F35246?thread=11

H.

Also, "alter"?

Been reading DSM IV, have we? Or perhaps talking to someone who has...?

H.

Endotherm

According to one of the Vicars I have worked with, I am a strong candidate for a free pass at the pearly gates.

Thing is she doesnt know what's in my heart and she like your girlfriend is missing out something JC himself is reported to have said.

No one gets to see my dad except through me.

Im paraphrasing obviously but any decent bible scholar or mediumly educated youth worker will know that any English bible is a translation of a translation of stories that may or may not be literal truth and many that look patently made up.

As for the opinions of theologians, they are simply religious politicians, though there are some theologians and politicians I respect the only difference between theologians and TV evangelists is that they are poorer and are less ostentatious in their delivery.

There is no difference between them and Cromwell except that they are less blood thirsy in their insitence that people accept their interpretations.


Wrong AGAIN I said Member had issues. This was said inrelation to his feelings about education and teachers and later how he felt about his parents health or lack of it.

I have no issues with you just issues with the unending stream of hateful and ill-informed opinions you conjure up on subjects as diverse as race, parenting, terminations and the legacy of Empire. These along with your out right lies and misquoting of other people, which is deliberate when you have the backlog to read so you can quote accurately if you wished, is quite enough without making things too personal.

one love

What do you want me to explain? A thread where you rant and rave for a bit about me, then change to an attack on a guy in Opus Dei? Why don't *you* explain it!
"Alter" - yes, I have read the DSM, which doesn't mean I put any credence in it (I have studied psychology, I have passed papers in it, but so what?)

<>

And if these "authorities" disagree where does authority lie? And why? (And why are *any* of these "authoratitive"?)

Noggin

Hoo,

Different parts of the bible are meant to be read in different ways, the NT is obviously different than the OT. There's historical consensus that Jesus existed and was exectuted by the Romans. Whether he was the son of God or not is up to you. I think Jesus was more of a radical hippy-like leader of a movement, which went a little too far. But when it comes down to it I cannot disagree with you, and that's one of the (many) reasons why I reject the Christian stories, looked at all the facts presented to me and decided God did not exist.


Blicky,

"No one gets to see my dad except through me"

That's open to interpretation too. Maybe "through him" means you follow his teachings de facto. Bingo! Welcome to heaven, endless beaches on the left, all you can eat chocolate cake on the right, and straight ahead the free empty rollercoaster park. *Shrug*

Theologians are just clever people. Less like politicians, more like philosophers and academics surely?


Hi Noggin,

"And if these "authorities" disagree where does authority lie? And why?

Pick the one that works best or suits the society, or the political aims of the leaders (e.g., authority against gay marriage in the states by fundamentalists). It isn't a science, though it would be nice to be internally consitent once in a while.

(And why are *any* of these "authoratitive"?)"

Because people choose them to be I suppose.

Della: Actually, the "difference" you point out isn't much of a difference, as the NIV quote you provided still has Paul making gross, rude assumptions about young widows... the sinful, lazy busybodies theme is carried in that version as well as the KJV. You haven't disproven my point. I can trot out a ton of Paul quotes that carry the theme of misogyny further.

And proving that once again you know nothing of which you speak... the KJV is the second-most popular version today, far from the fringe reference you believe: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1262229.html

The reasons I refer to the KJV are:

1) It is one of the two most popular.
2) Of the two, the KJV is the most honest, as the NIV rather dishonestly attempted to clean up some of the passages that had become more embarassing to Christianity. A paragraph near the top of this gives a very good, quick intro to the biases of the NIV: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm
3) I use a website to help me find the stuff I need very quickly, and it uses the KJV as its primary source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

For personal use I prefer the NAB, which is superior to both the KJV and the NIV. It was produced by Catholic scholars in the '70's in modern English. Say what you will about the Catholics, but in modern scholarship they take their sources very seriously, and are more accurate than anyone. They leave the embarassing bits alone, limiting their adjustments to the footnotes.