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

Loup you are right you do have an opinion and a right to post it. Your opinion is just that though.

What you define as being a christian is rather subjective though by the looks of things.

I and the world in general see christans as people who think that the character in the book called the bible is the son of the bigG. No caveats

We really don't want to drag old history onto here, Blickybadger, do we? Especially on an Edited Entry...

hi Della,

<> (blicky)

<> (Della)

And you also call yourself a Christian whilst believing in things like reincarnation, which are not a standard part of Christian theology. You also believe in evolution which is not something that is embraced by all Christians.

I'm not sure what your take on Blair is but I have seen you write on more than one occasion that you don't consider Bush to be a Christian. Why not?



hi Jimster,

I think blicky was replying to this comment to him by Della:

<>

I do hope, as you do, that blicky is not trying to dig up old history (though his comment seemed to be simply a mild reminder and nothing more). Likewise, perhaps Della could take more care with posting comments that might elicit such a response? It seems to me that both of them remember the 'old history' well enough to avoid bringing it up again.


az

You are complety right, as usual, Jimster.

I should have put more thought into that post and used a different example of behaviour contrary to the teachings of christ by researchers who call themselves christians. I will try to remember this in future.

Thanks

Loup: I can see you've missed the point of the first five books in the Bible. There is a whole lot more "law" than just the Ten Commandments (of which there are two different versions, naturally, but that's another point for another day). Leviticus and Deuteronomy in particular are almost nothing but law.

For instance, in Matthew 15, Jesus addresses the Pharisees for their failure to uphold OT law:

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Now, "Honour thy father and mother" is one of the Ten Commandments. But the "die the death" bit is a non-commandment pronouncement in Leviticus 20:9. This would be one of those jots of the law that is to last until heaven and earth come to an end. Some of the more interesting tittles are instructions on how to sell your daughters, and in what conditions you can kill slaves without penalty.

You said something about me going to a church others would not accept, so that's why I asked! Check your last posting.
<,PS have you forgotten your violent intentions towards the middle class mothers with screaming children in supermakets already Della>>
For goodness' sake, Blinky, I didn't say I give them a slapping, I said I sometimes feel like doing so! That doesn't mean I can, have or will. As you so often do, you are taking my words out of context and twisting them. (Besides, I was joking, exaggerating, using figurative language, as you well know.)
I have no intention of arguing about the "death threat" (months, not weeks ago). You know the true story, you just hope others don't.

<>

Well, if you *know* that, Blinky, why argue and obsess about it? (I would argue that a Christian must show by his/her behaviour that they believe and follow that "character"...

<>

The vast majority of Christians have no issue with evolution. (There are many non-Christians here who wish it was otherwise, it is so easy for them to ridicule creationists, which is why some people get so worked up when some Christians insist on levels of interpretation other than the literal!)
I do not take BB's words as being as innocent as you do, azahar - gentle reminder, yeah right! He himself has said he loves conflict...

"There are different branches of christinanity as you have atested to. The KKK brand may not be one which you approve of but no matter what church you or anyone attends i could find you some other christian wh would say you or any other christian is not a christian."

I see a huge flaw in this line of argument. Using this logic one could say that the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democracy because it says it is.

Conversely it could be said that Nth Korea is to democracy what the KKK or Bush is to christanity.

Where does appointing leaders fit with the rules of democracy? OR
Where do the rules of cristianity fit with the KKK

The answer to both is the same They Don't.

"Where do the rules of cristianity fit with the KKK"

Which rules do you refer to? I'm sure you can post a few you like that the KKK violate, but they can post dozens that you violate yourself. I'm betting you eat shellfish, and you have more reason than any to speak ill of your mother. I'm sure she makes you mow the lawn and clean your room during the Sabbath.

Or perhaps we can dispense with the pretense of "rules of cristianity[sic]" because there are none. The only requirement for a Christian is belief in Jesus and God and that Jesus died for their sins. If you and your Christian brothers and sisters of the KKK have a disagreement, then that is an internal matter you should take up among yourselves. The practice of actually following the rules spelled out in Christianity is impossible, because the rules in one place contradict the ones in another. So everyone just follows whichever ones they want.

It seems to me that I'm harping on that theme in this thread, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Oh, and azahar - re Bush being a Christian... check this out!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvsjesus.htm

hi Della,

You seem to have missed my question about why you don't consider some christians (like Bush and Blair) to be christian, even though they insist that they are.


az

oops, simulpost, Della


s to read link . . .


az

I think we can reasonably say that there is more than one possible definition of what it is to be a Christian. One might choose a "minimalist" definition (the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, for example), or one might go for a more maximalist definition that includes the acceptance of a selection of theological and moral assertions, and/or moral and ritual performances.

I have no particular axe to grind about what such a definition should be, but I do about consistency of usage. It seems to me (though I am happy to be corrected), that a definition of Christianity that includes a belief in reincarnation and evolution must either be a minimalist one that will embrace a lot of groups with other "non-standard" beliefs (eg the KKK), or exclude a lot of groups with more standard beliefs that would widely be accepted as Christian.

Noggin

Bain its a interesting point you raise, but you have it slightly wrong.

A democracy has several objective points by which it can be judged.

Are elections free?

Are there opportunites for many parties and individuals to enter the elections?

Is there a broad sufferage?

So a country can call itself a democracy without fulfilling any of the commonly recognised indicators of what it is to be democratic. This is true of the worlds first democracy in ancient greek times.

Yet to be a christian has only one point of reference. Do you accept Jesus christ as the son of god and your saviour who died for your sins?

Now there is *no* external referrence for telling if your mommy's, the pope's or a klansman's answer to this question is true. So those of us who let people be let people call themselves christians if they want to call them selves that.

I dont try to stop your mommy calling herself Adelaide do I?

To me she will always be Della. She in her turn may not think Mormons are christians but that doesnt change anything.

one love

The whole "they're not real Christians" thing is just a defensive mechanism used to try to distance themselves from people they think reflect poorly on them. This is possibly because Christians are notorious for fuzzy logic, so they might reason:

1) Della is Christian
2) KKK is Christian
3) Therefore, Della is KKK

I might as well protest that Dubya is not a real American, because real Americans don't destroy capitalism and endanger American citizens. After all:

1) I am American
2) Dubya is American
3) Therefore, I am George Dubya Bush

And I'm pretty sure Bain is trying to acquire weapons-grade uranium.

So you two belive that North Korea is Democratic. Karl you belive there is one and only one rule to follow to be christian (which shows you have no clue) and that democracy has at least a few.

It seems you can't even agree with yourself and to show how weak your and blather's arguments are, neither are capable of forming a post without insults.

I thought there might be logic or even discussion here but there is only bashing of ideas from little kiddies.

"So you two belive that North Korea is Democratic.

when did I *ever* say such a thing. For the record and for the benefit of the very stupid I do not consider North Korea to be a democracy. The question of North Korea's democratic credentials is a non-starter even when without reference to its widely reported use of political imprisonment it clearly operates a one party system and therefore does not satisfy basic precepts of democracy.

Im not surprised that you couldnt understand that I think this Appy and need to ask(even though you forgot the question mark)

"It seems you can't even agree with yourself and to show how weak your and blather's arguments are, neither are capable of forming a post without insults."

It may "seem" that way to you Appy but that's only because you dont understand what Im saying. Also the fact that I choose to make disparaging remarks about you and your mother means nothing more than I dont think much of either of you, your flawed logic or your dogmatic "arguments" and "thinking". Making insults as you call them may make me look unpleasant and childish but does not alter the soundness of my points.

see you soon Appy

There is one big problem with defining "Christian", and that is that for a rational person the only indicator of whether a person is a Christian is whether they themselves say they are.

There really are no other criteria you can apply, rationally and objectively.

Of course, as soon as you point that out to someone who calls themself a Christian, they come back with some line about you having "no clue". Which is ironic, because we have precisely ONE clue, as I've said, and no other. The real issue is that self-identifying Christians cannot agree AMONG THEMSELVES what constitutes a Christian.

For some, Christianity requires 100% faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, including all the bits that contradict the other bits.

For others, Christianity appears just to mean being generally well-disposed to people, wearing nice clothes on a Sunday and singing songs in a draughty building.

For still others - including at least on former bishop in the Anglican church (the bishop of Durham) - being Christian apparently doesn't even require a belief in specific details of Jesus's story, such as the virgin birth or the literality of the resurrection.

I have no problem at all with the fact that the KKK are Christians, Della is a Christian, Justin the Preacher is a Christian, Tony Blair is a Christian, George W. Bush is a Christian, etc. For Bod's sake, it's a RELIGION - why on earth should anyone expect it to be consistent or to make any sense?

Of course, the problem arises when you point out to people like Della that she is a Christian, and that the KKK are a Christian organisation. That *may* be taken to imply she is in some way connected with racism (). Now - *I*, as an external observer of religious types, don't see any connection atr all. If a person within the Christian faith has a problem with OTHER people within the Christian faith, they should perhaps take it up with those people directly.

After all, as I've said - the ONLY evidence I have to go on whether someone is a Christian is whether they themselves identify as one. There is simply no other objective test. Some Christians insist there ARE other objective tests - but not all of them do, so I simply can't trust the ones who do, because they might be a minority lunatic cult within the broader Christian tradition. Who can tell?



It all sounds very similar to the bleatings of Muslims in the wake of 9/11 when they were oh so keen to point out that the hijackers were not "good Muslims". THEY said they were Muslims, so as far as I'm concerned, that's what they were.

H.

"Karl you belive there is one and only one rule to follow to be christian (which shows you have no clue)"

Oh dear Appy I have no clue do I?

How wrong you are but, hey that's not an unusual feeling for you is it, probably something you are well used to by now.

As a committed christian for the first few years of my life I attended one service *and* up to two church run clubs per week one was "Boys Brigade" and one was called "J Team" (can you guess what the J stood for Appy?). At school I received religious education up to the age of 13 and took part in mainly christian acts of worship once a week for almost the same length of time. For my post sixteen education I opted for one of my courses to be Early modern British history, I looked quite closely at the reformation and changes to the church and doctrine which at the time had a central part in British life (and death). I worked until recently for a church funded and linked group. I read and pay attention to the world around me. All these things give me clues.

Where do you get your information from?

Certainly not from what you read is it. I wrote nothing about rules for christians because there are none that you *have* to follow to be christian. You can break all of them and still be a christian after. I know this and you dont.

I have told you what christians believe in and *what they believe* is what makes them christians. When you ask a bunch of christians *they* cant agree on the rules which is why Im not stupid enough to suggest there are any rules.

one love