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

...but are coolness and fun among the more important reasons to advocate reading The Bible? If you want coolness, watch a Bond film (but pick it carefully).

Well researched, but I'm oh-so-mildly alarmed that the approved article written about something so important to a great deal of people is trivialising it to not an insignificant extent.

I agree. This entry is going to offend a lot of people. I'm a christian, and I don't mind poking a little fun of it (the entry doesn't offend me), but there should be a serious part of the entry too. Or perhaps someone should write another entry on Bible Study

The Guide doesnt have to look at things seriously
read the guide if you were a gaean and read the book
H2G2 then you'd know that the aliens dont care about
earth. if i was a planet loving person i'd be offended
so lets try not to get Fashist about it he is only making
a metaphorical interpretation of the whole thing.

The Guide has always trivialized things.

Remember, the original guide (in DNA's book) called the Earth "Mostly Harmless."

I'd definitely agree with you on this one, Jonboy. I thought that approved entries should offer a balanced view, and indeed in the Approval Guidelines it does say that submitted articles should be about reality, so saying that the Guide always pokes fun is not true. I have no problem with people expressing their own views on the Bible in the Guide, but I reckon that this shouldn't have been the sole basis for an approved entry. If someone spoke about Islam like that they'd be collecting their own body parts off the footpath for miles - why should we Christians be expected to sit here and be laughed at? The line that particularly offends me is the suggestion that we only accept the bits of the Bible that suit us - I'm sure that's as untrue for you as it is for me.

Can we request either un-approval (not removal), or renaming of this entry? Free speech and so on, but give us a break....

May I suggest that those people who have a contrary viewpoint post an appendix to a forum, then ask the author to flag it for revision (or is that the editor?). That's the approved h2g2 way of doing it. Alternatively, if you MUST take a negative view, highlight the points of view that particularly offend you.

However, I think this is *reasonably* balanced - no less balanced than anything else in the Guide. Let's have a detailed breakdown..

introduction
- the bible is taken seriously by many people - jews, xtians, muslims. fact.
- these people whould live their lives by its teachings. fact.
- this is hard. Last time I checked, nobody, religious or not, was suggesting that "Love thy Neighbour" is a walk in the park.
- many of it's teachings can be silly. I suggest changing "many" to "some". Amongst the silly teachings would be that anyone who curses the holy spirit cannot get into heaven, ever, forgiveness or not. (Mark, somewhere).
- many of it's teachings can be anachronous. Again, "many" to "some". Amongst those teachings are the teachings regarding how long you may keep slaves, which are less relevant now that slavery is illegal.

old testament
- extraordinary collection of stories, in hebrew. fact.
- vengeful god. fact.
- yhwh is his name - highly dubious.
- does cool stuff. fact. (what little kid wouldn't want to be able to turn into a pillar of fire?)
- contains a bunch of laws and restrictions, which is less cool. fact (laws have never been fashionable).
- prohibit doing pretty much anything that's fun. I'd go for "prohibit doing many fun things". Promiscuity is definately enjoyable... trust me on that one...
- stuff about the Torah and Jews. fact.
- stuff about christians. Ok, this is the weight of the problem, but Jesus revoked many commandments of the old testament, such as "unclean food", and circumcision, so in this sense christians are ignoring laws of the old testament. They also generally don't kill children for cursing their parents, as suggested in the OT (and affirmed by Jesus in the NT). This could have been phrased a little more tactfully, but it's basically true.
- after the torah. all facts. Except possibly the bit about beautifully written - some of them are, but most of them contain highly dull bits listing genealogies and so forth. I know, I read 'em...
- Song of Solomon. lovely. I wonder if it would work as a chat-up line... ("Speak Old Testament to me, baby").

new testament.
- the quote. Is horribly anti-xtian, but it is an accurate quote, and the author flags it as an exaggeration.
- less fun that the old testament. fact. Don't be offended, religions aren't meant to be "fun".
- five different versions of the same story. well, four or five or six, depending on the version.
- reading the same thing five times can get boring. I'd add "if you are not swept up by the beauty and truth of the thing.", or emphasise "can".
- Jesus said love one another, share what you own, etc. fact, though I'd say it was more hippy-like than communist. Pure communism is not an insult, btw - pure communism is closely identified with utopia to many people, who immeditaely follow that statement with "but sadly, human nature makes it fail".
- acts. can't comment, I got bored to death after the four gospels (see - it *can* happen).
- letters, from Paul, define contempory xtian doctrine. all fact.
- do they anaesthetise people when they circumcise them? I thought they didn't, as jabbing a needle in 'there' was just as painful as just cutting the dang thing off with a sharp enough knife.
- Revelations is highly cool. yeppers. It's plural in my bible, but may be singular in yours. I'd change "dream" to "vision"
- stuff about the importance of NT. Looks right to me.

Biblical Interpretation
- jewish ability at biblical interpretation. yep - they're pretty darn good.
- christian interpretation not as institutionalised. yeah, I'll swing with that.
- literalist/metaphoricalist interpretations. yep - two different ways.
- metaphorists are more flexible. yep - that's (if you think about it) got to be true. Whether that is a good thing is a different matter - it could be argued that people ignore what is important by explaining it away as metaphor - stuff like the creation. I'd prefer that last sentence rephrased as -

"It is argued that the 'metaphor' groups tend to be more tolerant and sophisticated, as the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible leaves room for some flexibility in doctrine. Others argue that by explaining things away in metaphor, people are ignoring important biblical statements in favour of their own imperfect morality."

which makes no judgements on which is better.

Funny parts of the bible
- well, I'm not sure whether you'd classify them as all funny, and most of them aren't serious threats to the integrity of the christian faith, unless you take the belief in an inerrant bible to quite ludicrous extremes.
- I think a section on "deadly serious parts of the bible" would be an appropriate counter point. I invite christians to write this and get it added to the entry.

Xanthis - staggers under the weight of her "two cents".

May I suggest that those people who have a contrary viewpoint post an appendix to a forum, then ask the author to flag it for revision (or is that the editor?). That's the approved h2g2 way of doing it. Alternatively, if you MUST take a negative view, highlight the points of view that particularly offend you.

However, I think this is *reasonably* balanced - no less balanced than anything else in the Guide. Let's have a detailed breakdown..

introduction
- the bible is taken seriously by many people - jews, xtians, muslims. fact.
- these people whould live their lives by its teachings. fact.
- this is hard. Last time I checked, nobody, religious or not, was suggesting that "Love thy Neighbour" is a walk in the park.
- many of it's teachings can be silly. I suggest changing "many" to "some". Amongst the silly teachings would be that anyone who curses the holy spirit cannot get into heaven, ever, forgiveness or not. (Mark, somewhere).
- many of it's teachings can be anachronous. Again, "many" to "some". Amongst those teachings are the teachings regarding how long you may keep slaves, which are less relevant now that slavery is illegal.

old testament
- extraordinary collection of stories, in hebrew. fact.
- vengeful god. fact.
- yhwh is his name - highly dubious.
- does cool stuff. fact. (what little kid wouldn't want to be able to turn into a pillar of fire?)
- contains a bunch of laws and restrictions, which is less cool. fact (laws have never been fashionable).
- prohibit doing pretty much anything that's fun. I'd go for "prohibit doing many fun things". Promiscuity is definately enjoyable... trust me on that one...
- stuff about the Torah and Jews. fact.
- stuff about christians. Ok, this is the weight of the problem, but Jesus revoked many commandments of the old testament, such as "unclean food", and circumcision, so in this sense christians are ignoring laws of the old testament. They also generally don't kill children for cursing their parents, as suggested in the OT (and affirmed by Jesus in the NT). This could have been phrased a little more tactfully, but it's basically true.
- after the torah. all facts. Except possibly the bit about beautifully written - some of them are, but most of them contain highly dull bits listing genealogies and so forth. I know, I read 'em...
- Song of Solomon. lovely. I wonder if it would work as a chat-up line... ("Speak Old Testament to me, baby").

new testament.
- the quote. Is horribly anti-xtian, but it is an accurate quote, and the author flags it as an exaggeration.
- less fun that the old testament. fact. Don't be offended, religions aren't meant to be "fun".
- five different versions of the same story. well, four or five or six, depending on the version.
- reading the same thing five times can get boring. I'd add "if you are not swept up by the beauty and truth of the thing.", or emphasise "can".
- Jesus said love one another, share what you own, etc. fact, though I'd say it was more hippy-like than communist. Pure communism is not an insult, btw - pure communism is closely identified with utopia to many people, who immeditaely follow that statement with "but sadly, human nature makes it fail".
- acts. can't comment, I got bored to death after the four gospels (see - it *can* happen).
- letters, from Paul, define contempory xtian doctrine. all fact.
- do they anaesthetise people when they circumcise them? I thought they didn't, as jabbing a needle in 'there' was just as painful as just cutting the dang thing off with a sharp enough knife.
- Revelations is highly cool. yeppers. It's plural in my bible, but may be singular in yours. I'd change "dream" to "vision"
- stuff about the importance of NT. Looks right to me.

Biblical Interpretation
- jewish ability at biblical interpretation. yep - they're pretty darn good.
- christian interpretation not as institutionalised. yeah, I'll swing with that.
- literalist/metaphoricalist interpretations. yep - two different ways.
- metaphorists are more flexible. yep - that's (if you think about it) got to be true. Whether that is a good thing is a different matter - it could be argued that people ignore what is important by explaining it away as metaphor - stuff like the creation. I'd prefer that last sentence rephrased as -

"It is argued that the 'metaphor' groups tend to be more tolerant and sophisticated, as the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible leaves room for some flexibility in doctrine. Others argue that by explaining things away in metaphor, people are ignoring important biblical statements in favour of their own imperfect morality."

which makes no judgements on which is better.

Funny parts of the bible
- well, I'm not sure whether you'd classify them as all funny, and most of them aren't serious threats to the integrity of the christian faith, unless you take the belief in an inerrant bible to quite ludicrous extremes.
- I think a section on "deadly serious parts of the bible" would be an appropriate counter point. I invite christians to write this and get it added to the entry.

Xanthia - staggers under the weight of her "two cents".

oops, it didn't get any shorter the second time...

Xanthia - blushing furiously

I don't think it is too flippant an article. The Bible, due to the way it was brought into being and collated,from so many different sources means that an awful lot of it doesn't seem to have a logical structure, especially when you add in the fact that an awful lot was lost in the translation. You only have to read the creationor the crossing theRed Sea to realise that it's an amalgamation of strains. Threre's three or four different versions all tied up together and all being told at the same time.This alao explains why God is so remote in some stories and anthropomorphic in others And it is true that christianity ignores an awful lot of the Old Testament law and picks out or highlights the usefull bits. If it was all taken literally, travelling on public transport would be a nightmare. Leviticus 15:20-23.

Look the guide takes a stance with god
saying that he doesnt exist in the first
place. The Babel Fish is a dead giveway.
So i think we should all just Disapear in
a puff of logic.

I understand the point that it's not supposed to be an advert for the Bible and so doesn't have to be 'hey guys this could change your life', but what worried me was that it was advocating reading it for the wrong reasons.

The anti-Christian line is very obvious in several places, ranging from gentle digs (Christians 'feverishly' obeying some laws and apparently disregarding others...it should be noted some people are more 'committed' Christians than others) to some pretty strong attacks (like likening Xtianity to Communism, which has always been anti-religion; see Karl Marx for 'Religion is the opium of the people').

Fine, no one's saying (so far!) that it should be pro-Christian, but there's an equal lack of reason for it being against! I mean why not just change the article to 'Don't read it', if that's the line?

And if you're going to point bits out that are 'cool' or involve women being seduced or whatever you consider fun, then try and balance the point of reading the book by listing some bits that deal with, oh I dunno, say the importance of being nice to people, and philosophy, and how it might be a good idea to live your life in a good way? Wacky stuff like that.

Umm, surely if you are a chistian you should believe that the inherant brilliance of the message will shine forth to all, regardless of how they initially approach it? There's (objectively) no "wrong" reason to read the bible, and "all publictity is good publicity".

I think you're confusing an objective view with an anti-christian view. Don't forget that the Jews and Muslims both regard this book as holy, and tthat their view deserve equal prominence to the christian view. As great as it would be to be able to say "Jesus is God", that view is far from universal...

(and come on, "love thy neighbour" is profound, deep, and probably a good maxim to live your life by, but cool...? I think not...)

I really don't want to criticize anything said in the entry. I think that some things in the entry will offend a lot of christians, but none of it offends me. And I don't think any of what the entry says should be taken out. I think that someone should write another, more serious entry on Christian Bible Study, or something like that, and outline christian philosophy on bible study. Then this entry should link to the Christian Bible Study entry, and vice versa.

I'm not saying the entry should be pro-Christian - that would be wrong. Just that for objectivity you shouldn't go too much either way, and I feel this is a little anti-Christian at times. Regarding the 'all publicity is good publicity', I agree in this case. Better someone read it than not... But even if you think the message should shine through regardless, it doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing.

Yes, parts of the book are holy to followers of Judaism and Islam, but the former have the Torah and the Koran, which contain some identical sections but not all. The Bible as a whole (which must be a key issue since the article is on the whole book rather than just selective parts) is Christian.

As regards coolness...good idea to list some bits non-Christians can enjoy, and the article is right to do so. I wasn't suggesting any overtly religious bits should be listed under the 'cool' banner, but as a guide to those looking for spiritual meaning. After all, religions aren't generally tied up with short-lived stuff like coolness. They tend to have a longer game plan.

You can't deny Islam a right to be involved in this entry, just because they have the Koran - that would be like denying Christianity a right to be in an entry on the old testament, just because they have the new testament. Nor can you ignore the Judaist claim - last I checked, the old testament is about twice the size of the new.

Sorry, I just feel it's a touch arrogant to claim the bible as "Christian". It's a large book, and there are parts which are relevant to all sorts of faiths and spiritual outlooks, even atheism! (I'm thinking of parts of Ecclesiastes). In many places it's an important historical source, too.

To pick up a point in this conversation: this entry was not well researched. If it had been I wouldn't have had to point out the fact that the last book in the bible doesn't have an "s" in its name. (has been corrected now)
This seems trivial. It isn't. There weren't several revelations, John had *one*.
The second reason its not trivial is because *anyone* who has read books on the bible etc. would know that that is practically the first mistake made in the popular press. I looked for it first in this entry, lo and behold it was there.
It makes me think that the author hadn't actually done their research properly- a mistake (to me) as obvious as that one doesn't leave me feeling confident about the rest of the entry.

"The only thing Christians cannot stand is to be made fun of."

I agree that this article was poorly researched. Revelations should be Revelation, there are 4 Gospels, not 5, and the first five books are the Pentateuch, not the Torah. But as for the tone of the article, I don't see anything wrong with it. It takes a rather impartial approach. A true believer would write an article that absolutely fawns over it, a true disbeliever might write an article like the one I have that debunks the whole thing. This thing just gives you the basics, points out a couple of interesting anecdotes, and then wraps up. It's about as balanced as one could expect.

Who's that a quote from (i'm assuming it is one)?

Personally I don't really care much if someone feels the need to ridicule my beliefs...

"The only thing Christians cannot stand is to be made fun of."

Colonel, Sir,

For reasons which need not concern us here, our daughter is about to start at a "Roman Catholic" sixth form college. Last evening we went to a parents' talk. The vice principal spoke of the school's mixed faith roll and its activity, religious and otherwise. He told the story of the bright lad who consistently ignored maths at his school. His parents figured that it was a failure of the school and moved him to another; then another; then another. Eventually the only school left was the RC one which they didn't fancy because of their reluctance to accept the possibility of indoctrination, but their course was fixed.
After his first day the boy went straight up to his room, came down for his tea then went back to his room. Eventually his folks went to see what he was at. They found him poring over his maths books.
The next day they reported the success to the head teacher who was naturally delighted at the result and invited the boy to his study to examine the reasons and learn from them.
The boy explained:
"Well I figured that I'd better make an effort at maths, I can see you take it seriously here. Just inside the front door you've got that statue of the guy nailed to the 'plus sign'."