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

Is Bain trotting out that tired "I just came here to have a nice conversation and you guys are mean" pretense again? How dull. Among the fundamental, unchangeable principles of the universe are:

1) The sun rises in the west.
2) Water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom.
3) Cigarettes cause cancer.
4) Fox News lies.
5) Della and Appy are incapable of reasonable discussion.

Noggin, I have to insist that you have it backwards about evolution! The odd ones out are the ones who don't accept it! St Augustine wrote ca 403 AD - "Often a non-Christian understands things about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances... and this knowledge (he) holds with certainty from reason and experience.. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embrasssing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

This is from something called The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Non literal meanings were accepted as far back as Origen in the 2nd century AD. So, there's nothing odd, or new about it.

Blatherskite, as an aside, you may be interested to know, that I have heard Americans insist either that Bush is not a real American, or that those who oppose him aren't! So that's a sorry analogy...

<< Making insults as you call them may make me look unpleasant and childish but does not alter the soundness of my points.>>

Yes, it does...

<>

My old Mum used to say something about the "pot calling the kettle black"
(Note to Blinky, the remark has nothing to do with race...)

Oh, and BTW, Blatherskite Sellers, Apparition is not here any more, and I am not Della, at least not to you, Hoo and Blinky!

"Blatherskite, as an aside, you may be interested to know, that I have heard Americans insist either that Bush is not a real American, or that those who oppose him aren't! So that's a sorry analogy.."

All that argument proves is that poor logic is not limited to Christianity.

Pot and kettle? Check my homepage. You'll find some quoted messages by people who got the impression I can carry on an exemplary reasoned discussion under the right circumstances... the right circumstances in this case being a Della/Appy-free zone. The first quote is particularly enlightening, as it is apparently written by someone who is always on the other end of the issue. Additionally, the FFFF was famous for its ability to carry on contentious arguments in a respectful manner before certain types showed up. As founder, I do believe I had some influence on the setting of that tone.

And your credentials would be? Other than a large number of researchers I respect hounding you at every opportunity, that is?

Pot and kettle, hrmph. I'm quite insulted that you would even consider yourself in any way similar to me.

"I am not Della, at least not to you, Hoo and Blinky! "

On the contrary - to us, you'll ALWAYS be Della.

H.

Blatherskite, I have always found your user page very amusing, it's like a politician's leaflet, who is begging for re-election - "these are all the people who think I am just simply fabulous!"
<>
Large number? Let's see, Hoo/Member/Number (all the same person) Blinky, Ferrett and you - with occasional input from azahar. Wow, I feel so intimidated!
Seven people hate me... and at least three of them are the same guy!

"and at least three of them are the same guy!"

hated by a scitzophrenic, a politician and two rugby heads. I can see why you're so worried

and yes I remember, they hate me too

"Blatherskite, I have always found your user page very amusing, it's like a politician's leaflet, who is begging for re-election"

Right. A politician begging for re-election would post reviews like:

"I know that social skills are not his forte online or in person."
"I'd say You sound like a complete arse"
"basically speaking a lot of rubbish in his post again."
"you has a poor grasp of the skills of academic argument"
"rude and childish"
"You can't even read or comprehend one entry"
"arrogant, maybe just uninspired by intelligent thought, BS" - I'm sure Bain recognizes this one.
"Proves your mother didn't raise a fool. You must have aspired to it independently."

As usual, Della, your argument is purile, entirely specious, and so easily dismissed that I am simultaneously bored and yet horrified that such stupidity could survive to adulthood.

Darwin's rolling over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing
And it's worsening
"The Idiots are Taking Over", NOFX

Now stop this before I have to start tracking down all the people who think you suck. It's a very, very long list, and you know it.

<,As usual, Della, your argument is purile, entirely specious, and so easily dismissed that I am simultaneously bored and yet horrified that such stupidity could survive to adulthood.>>

You say that, by being selective in the "tributes" on your space that you chose to quote. As you know, the whole impression that you want to convey is one of deep, albeit reluctant, admiration - hence the remark about being like a politician. If accusing me of stupidity is the best you can come up with in the way of refutation, I am sorry for you...
You are obviously feeling quite hurt. Poor BS!

For the benefit of the record and the stupid.

Iam the only eggchaser presently on "your case". I have (nearly) always been your one and only freindly neighbourhood badger

Ferrettbro he plays football with this shaped ball

Member/number always said he was the same person but it amused him to have two names. What kind of warped amusement he got from that both Bain/DMM and Adelaide/della/Annie should already know as they were doing it before and have done it since the appearance and disappearance of Member/number.

As well as changing your name regularly you often forget things easily Della and Bain both of you should know now that Hoo is someone else, not Member but has admitted to the even odder practice of operating different acounts and pretending to be different people.

An act of the deeply sad who cant form normal relationships or who need to have sock puppet accounts to back up their weak arguments something you have both done in the past. Accounts like Adele and the Wraith to name but a few and oddest of all one named Blickybadger (Immitation the sincerest form of flattery)

Blathers has always been blathers AFAIK has been derided and disparaged by a chronically sad and pathetic person he fell out with but did not have the backbone to do it to his face but rather did it through a new account. Step forward Appy/Bain.

Why do you continue to try and blacken the names of other people who have *not* done the things you talk about while the only people I know who do all these things are....you two.

one love

Blathers used to be styled "Colonel Sellers". Della used to call him "Colonel Sanders". Is anyone surprised?

I've listed the other accounts I've used elsewhere. In every case I've done so for the purposes of comedy - some of it meanspirited, perhaps, but all of it provably successful comedy. I've never done it purely to harass or to escape responsibility for my actions. For the record.

H.

<>

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, Adelaide.

I *personally* have no problem with the fact that a majority of people calling themselves Christian believe in some form of evolution. Nevertheless there is still a significant minority of Christians who *do* believe in a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. And many (though not all) of these "Creationists" *do* believe that not following this interpretation disqualifies one as a Christian. And given that they arguably have the sanction of the Bible for this judgement, why does their opinion of what constitutes a Christian lack the validity of your own rather different judgement?

Noggin

"I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, Adelaide"



If I had a penny...

H.

<< why does their opinion of what constitutes a Christian lack the validity of your own rather different judgement?>>
I do not say such people are not Christians, or wrong about what constitutes a Christian!
I was reading something written (ca 1986) by Andrew Greeley last night, in which he points out that both Fundamentalist Christians and what might be described as Fundamentalist Atheists (not his term) both have a stake in insisting on a literal version of the Bible for very different reasons! It seems to me that most adamantly anti-Bible people here, refuse to consider a non-literal reading valid, or to acknowledge that a non-literal reading of Genesis is not a modern invention, but goes back centuries...

I am more than happy to acknowledge the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

The problem, however, is that as soon as any Christian suggests to me that Genesis is not, in fact, the literal truth, I'm forced to ask why they think other parts of the Bible are.

Given that no Bible I've ever seen is annotated so as to point out which bits are charming fairy stories to entertain children and which bits are seriously meant to tell one how to run one's life, ANY decision on where to draw that line is entirely personal.

At least the Fundamentalists are consistent, even if their pet book isn't. It's all the rest of the wooly-minded Christians who most wind me up, because they want to have their cake and eat it.

"Well, yes, THAT bit is *obviously* allegorical and you're not meant to take it literally so I don't, while THIS bit here from the same book is the absolute gospel Truth with a capital T and you must respect its enormous importance as the centre of my existence on this earth."

Also: I have no problem acknowledging that non-literal interpretations of Genesis go back centuries. This is perfectly natural, given that the existence of intelligent people capable of independent thought goes back centuries.

H.

Oh, and er, Della? You've failed to understand something again.

You said "I do not say such people are ...wrong about what constitutes a Christian! "

Um... yes, you do. They would say you are NOT a Christian.

You would say they are wrong.

Understand?

H.

Hey, Member, twice in one day, hey, I am answering you! What's that about?
<<"I do not say such people are ...wrong about what constitutes a Christian! ">>
I stand by that statement. You conveniently left out the part where I said I do not say such people are not Christians... and I do not say it. They are Christians, I am a Christian. I disagree with them on a matter of interpretation. 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) about non-creationist Christians, because they're not so easy to ridicule, but see above!
If you had any acquaintance with the study of literature, 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!

"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.