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

Two things:
I'm not Bad, just Mad - which means insane/silly.
I was simply adding light to the situation - no offence to Shawn intended! I'll watch my tongue next time off anyone was offended.
My faith IS very close to my heart... I wasn't making fun of that, I was just pondering what people acted like when seeing someone with two heads... oh dear, I'll shut up, shall I?

Ooh a new forum. Sorry, I'm a bit slow off the mark.
I'm generally keeping out of the debates because I've got waaay to much to do at the moment, but you all seem to be enjoying yourselves anyway
One minor point: If people are worried about being entered into any kind of list then don't worry, there is NO 'H2G2 Christians' list of people. I made this page so that people can come and make themselves known as Christians to other Christians, or come and debate, not so I can shadow you for the rest of your lives...
However, if anyone would particularly like me to mention another article on the main page then feel free to ask me. At the moment this is just for other Christian pages. I hope nobody minds this; I'm not trying to be discrimitary; this page is mainly intended to be a resource for Christians on H2G2, but open to everyone. No hard feelings?

OK you can carry on arguing now

Well, Peregrin, if there is one person who should be entitled to any hard feelings, it would be you. I seem to have invaded your forum with my non-Christian way of looking at the world. But, the debate is quite interesting, and if nothing else, I think it's making us all look at what we believe and why a little more closely. Which is a good thing.

So, no hard feelings from my end, anyway.

First, to Mr. T.... I didn't think you meant any harm, but I was just checking. So don't shut up now, please.

And to Celt: The Puritans burned witches. Were they Catholic? I don't think so, but I'm no expert on Puritans. Nope, my dictionary assures me they were Protestant. No pope involved in that one...

I think that perhaps one of the biggest fallacies in modern history is the idea that the people burned as witches WEREN'T witches, when in fact many of them probably were. If you mean witches as in the "what we now call Wiccans" sense of the word. That is, they worshiped Mother Earth and all that jazz. And they were burned because they were unwilling to give up their own religion.

Now, the witches the Puritans burned probably did not fall into this category... although the girls who started the whole thing had a nanny who was Hatian, and therefore undoubtedly practiced at least some witchcraft. The Middle Ages was a different story. The "heathens" mentioned in the Bible did not give up their faith easily.

As for the whole history of horror lying mainly with the Catholic Church: a lot of that is simply because most other branches of Christianity came about in modern times, when burning people was out of fashion...

And the KKK (religious in theory, if not in practice) burns crosses on the lawns of, among other things, Catholics. Leading me to believe that they claim to be something other than Catholic themselves. And fully believe to be doing the work of God, I might add.

Justify past actions? What of the present?

I do agree with what you say about the pope. He is a political leader as much as a religious one. Always had been, always will be. (And to avoid offending, let me say that I am not saying anything about this particular pope as a man)

Say what you want about Pope John Paul II, but he was a good enough goalkeeper to play for Poland.

As far as the soccer-type-of-football world goes, any man that will give up footie for the church can't be knocked as far as devotion goes.

Here's a couple more thoughts (before somebody moves the forum to keep things moving fast - I'd suggest it myself but I don't feel I've been involved enough to be so presumptuous -oh, and I don't know how to put in a link).

1.It seems this is a debate mainly amongst younger people. I'm 32 and suspect that makes me pretty old. I'm sure it would be interesting (i make no more claim than that) if we had contributions from voices on experience. Strange reference - Philip K Dick, whose later "sci-fi" novels are more openly religious than C S Lewis's.

2. Has anyone had direct spiritual experience? I am convinced that I have felt the presence of something which I am prepared to call God (it was during my marriage vows). I am prepared to tell this to anyone, despite being an Anglican and a lawyer in normal life, but only if asked... I don't want the forum to lose the rational arguments, but - hey - faith is more than rational argument and that's part of the beauty of it.

3. A vicar was preaching on the subject of the difference between faith and knowledge. "Take Mr and Mrs Jones and thir children in the front pew here," he suggests.

Here's a couple more thoughts (before somebody moves the forum to keep things moving fast - I'd suggest it myself but I don't feel I've been involved enough to be so presumptuous -oh, and I don't know how to put in a link).

1.It seems this is a debate mainly amongst younger people. I'm 32 and suspect that makes me pretty old. I'm sure it would be interesting (i make no more claim than that) if we had contributions from voices on experience. Strange reference - Philip K Dick, whose later "sci-fi" novels are more openly religious than C S Lewis's.

2. Has anyone had direct spiritual experience? I am convinced that I have felt the presence of something which I am prepared to call God (it was during my marriage vows). I am prepared to tell this to anyone, despite being an Anglican and a lawyer in normal life, but only if asked... I don't want the forum to lose the rational arguments, but - hey - faith is more than rational argument and that's part of the beauty of it.

3. A vicar was preaching on the subject of the difference between faith and knowledge. "Take Mr and Mrs Jones and thir children in the front pew here," he suggests.

"Mrs Brown knows she is the mother of those children. That's knowledge.

"Mr Brown believes he is the father of those children. That's faith."

I cannot see beauty in Faith (if defined as in belief without logic). If faith is accepting what you are told without question then I despise faith. I have learnt to question what I am told. There is a limit to questioning. The example given was a logical jump of belief (it would be pendantic to "Trust No-one". However, I think questioning beliefs healthy. As I have said before, I have questioned the existance of God and if Jesus was his Son. I cannot see a good reason why there is a God as portrayed in Christianity/Islam/Jusaism. Not meaning to directly offend, I find the concept of Jesus being the actual Son of God ridiculous. The question that summarises my views is:

'At what age was Jesus potty-trained?'

I'm awaiting some interesting replies.

I don't believe faith is simply accepting what I'm told, for me that would deny my basic right to think for myself. For me it's been a matter of taking in various viewpoints and deciding for myself what I believe.
I was taught that what my mom thought was right, was right. And fortunately for my sanity and general health when I reached an age of being able to question (which I do, she'll verify) I came to the conclusion that it made a lot of sense, to me at any rate. But just because I have a faith doesn't mean I don't question it. I just try to use my questioning to understand a bit more about things.

Does that make any sense?

Yes, of course it makes sense . I have had similar experience. I was raised secular Jew while going to a Christian-based school from age six. I have, and still am, questioning the views I was brought up with and have developed. I am criticised for being to Logical, Scientific and Cynical about beliefs. I just cannot make this 'Leap of Faith' and believe something which I consider irrational. As I have said earlier, I wish I could do this. As it is said 'Ignorance is Bliss' and I wish I was ignorant of some things as I would not question life so much. But as it is, I do. Lately I have been trying to understand Christianity:
If Jesus was the Son of God and was the Son of a virgin, then was he wise and magnificent from his birth? Did this toddler heal people and perform miracles? I just can't believe he was born special. I REALLY want to know a rational explanation of this and what you believe.

First, to answer Dilapidated, I am 29 (and female). If you read some of my postings, I think you'll find some references to experience. No, I'm not old. But I've been out in the real world long enough to have seen quite a few things.

I DO have faith, I have felt spiritual experiences. I feel them every day when I look at the mountains, or the sunset, or the falling snow. I don't call what I feel "God" because that whole idea didn't work for me. I went through a (rather long) stage where I felt much as Psyduck seems to feel. I've started to move beyond feeling cynical about what I've been taught, and moved on to believing my own beliefs.

I do not belong to any one faith. But the fact is that those who call themselves Wiccans belong to a faith much older than recorded history, much older than The Bible claims that man was on this planet. It works better for me than the male-centered Western religions. But then, so does Chinese philosophy. So again, I don't allign myself with any one religion. I don't believe in "God the Father." But do I have faith? Yes, indeed.

As you don't term your experience "God", I don't term my feelings "spiritual" as I find it a cliché for all the crap that goes on in Mind, Body & Spirit exhibitions. You seem to be quite agnostic, feel like sticking a ?¿ on the end of your name?

Haha. My dear Psyduck, I got off that agnostic fence a few years back. I am a full-fledged Atheist, at least as far as those professing a belief in an all-knowing God are concerned.

I understand completely your resentment towards organized religion. However, there are ideas of "spirit" that predate Christianity (and Judaism) by thousands of years. Ideas that illustrate that people are responsible for their own "salvation", that what we should live for is life here on Earth. If more people concentrated on making THIS life better, and let the next one (whatever that may be) take care of itself, I dare say the world would be a better place.

I bet you still haven't read the Tao of Pooh like I suggested.... Ah, well. As I said, I was once as cynical about the whole thing as you claim to be now. I stopped feeling angry about what religion had done to me when I decided to give it up altogether and find my own meaning to life.

I suggest you stop by and visit bluDragon. (she's recently received a royal title). Perhaps some of her ideas will make more sense to you than those you were raised with.

As always,
bp

I have beliefs, because there are things I believe.

There are always those that have more power than I have, so I have no problem with the idea of powerful forces.

What I didn't have, until recently, was the belief that one being, all alone for an indeterminate period but with a notion of parenthood and sexuality, created a universe. Immense cubic (indeed, temporal-cubic) capacity. Then placed life on just one small planet.

Then created a multitude of creatures before finally hit on the idea of making one sort to look after the others.

I know what the religious argument is, and until recently I had no faith to believe what I now believe. The idea of religion is one based on faith, it is beyond examination. It is, by definition, nondeterminationary.

Well, here's my theory. I have a cat, her name is Ripley. She is five years old and she created the universe. Everything from bosons and quarks, right up to galactic clusters. Chaotic space, predictable phenomena, all are as a result of the laws that were brought into being by Ripley when she created the universe five years ago.

Ah, but you have memories and pictures and video evidence from beyond 1994...? Ripley invented them. Impregnated everything with levels of Carbon-14 when she invented the periodic table just as she placed memories and lessons into your minds.

You, I and anyone else cannot prove or disprove this hypothesis using any means at our disposal. It is nondeterminationary, therefore is beyond refute, therefore is as likely as any other theory of the creation of the universe. Unlike any other theory, though, this is the right one.

I know the scientific ones among you have circumstancial evidence of residual radiation from a Big Bang, but this was also created by Ripley.

I know some of you follow other creationist theories, but they are nought in Ripley's eyes.

OK. Now prove me wrong. I have faith on my side.

PS- I am almost 30, so not young at all.

Unless you are serious (actually, even if you are serious) you back my point. Most theories have no logic or evidence to them. This is what I can't believe in. I cannot believe Jesus was the Son of God in the same way as you (excluding Shawn) don't believe Ripley created the universe. It just doesn't add up to me! The scientific theories are bleak and less "enlightening" but they are logic and reasonable. This may be otherwise for others...

Shawn, you have, in your own odd way, made a very good point. The thing about faith is that we have no way of proving it. Which is something that those who count themselves among the faithful in this forum have said right along. (and I respect every one of them for not attacking or preaching to those who count ourselves among the non-believers)

My point is that all cultures have some manner of faith, many of them differing from our own. But they all have a common theme: there is a power that is greater than us. Logic and reason have their place. But it is logic and reason that tell me there is something more to life than immediately meets the eye. Choosing to view the world as bleak certainly benefits no one. And it is not quite an accurate way to look at the world, anyway. All of life is connected, as science is just now beginning to "prove." What we do has a profound effect on the world, whether we see it or not. The hole in the ozone is a perfect example. So I would propose that science and logic are now revealing what every form of religion has tried to tell us: walk gently, for there are forces out there that even the wise don't understand.

Do I believe that Jesus was the "Son of God"? No, because too many other religions have differing beliefs, and it is not logical to assume that all are wrong save one. One fairly modern religion, at that. But do I believe that there is more to life than a chain of chemical reactions? Yes I do. Because if Darwin is right, and evolution makes us all into what is best suited for the environment, then we'd all be cockroaches, the most successful creature known to science.

Although I suppose we all know some people who have evolved in that direction.....

Peace and love.
bp

I am NOT a materialist. As I said, I have no "faith" as in belief without either (1)Physical Proof, (2)Personal Experience, (3)Logical argument.
By logical argument and personal experience I have decided there is something other that the physical. I talk of this as some form of energy, measurable in most cases. All I have been told about this allmighty, all-knowing being does not follow my 1-2-3 steps to my belief. Same goes for the Son-of-God idea.
According to Darwin's theory the creature does not just adapt to its environment as best as possible but can sometimes make "random" leaps or mutations which can then benifit the creature so it sticks to them. Maybe the cockroach is the "best" designed creature and can survive the effects of radiation but we the evolved cockroaches can squish it!
Finally, taking a cynical/pessimist view is a totally different subject. For some unknown reason, I hate blind idealism and take revenge on it by my cynicism. I dislike those who "know" the "truth" and want to try and make them question their views. I don't know why I do this but I do. I don't think I'll become quite as Zenful and harmonised as you. This is because I'm a much more cynical and critical person. I've been like this for a long time and don't think I'll change THAT much.
Well, that should keep you occupied for a while .

Oooh, I'm not quite as Zenful OR harmonized as you make it sound....

All I'm saying is that I went through a longish period (by that, I mean a good 10 years or so) where I was very cynical. I still can be at times. But I gradually moved from questioning everything to not really caring anymore. I questioned because, let's face it, believing WOULD be nice and neat and easy. Heaven sounds rather jolly, and if all you have to do to get there is believe in God, well then sign me up!! I was raised to believe all that, after all. But you know what? I couldn't believe. There were too many holes in the explanations, too many things that didn't make sense.

There is a place and a necessity for questioning and cynicism. From both arises a new understanding of things. I don't believe in an all-knowing God, either. The forces I believe in are much more impersonal. They don't come to you to help you. But, by looking around at the ways of the world, we can sometimes tune into this power (you call it energy) and learn from it.

I suppose all I'm trying to say is that I once was pretty much where you are now, I think. And I'm not saying at all that I'm in a "better place" now, only that it works better for ME. Personally, I still question everything, I think that much of what we consider to be "normal" (for example, working 9 hours a day and spending 3 hours a day with the people who mean the most to you) is, in fact, not normal at all. It's just that no one's questioned it for so long, that everyone assumes it's ok. But, having struggled with believing in nothing for too long, I've found a way that works better for me.

A place for everything, and everything in its place, I say.

Here, have a . And a . And keep making people question their beliefs. It's good for the world.

I agree there are incidents of burning as punishment in early times, by other cultures including some protestant. On the whole, these were isolated incidents - a form of social justice.

The torture and burnings that swept through dark age Europe were the punishment for 'heresy'. Simply put, if one did not admit that the pope and the catholic church were supreme, then one was an 'heretic'. 'Witch' may have been a catch-all term for 'female heretic'.

These days the term 'protestant' is usually taken to mean 'not catholic'. Apparently it came originally from a small group of german(?) kings who protested an order from the church. The early reformed churches - lutheran, calvanist et al, ditched selective portions of the catholic doctrine and dogma accordingly, but not necessarily catholic preferred punishments. I think those responsible for the salem burnings during the infancy of America were calvanists - a pretty severe bunch.

Whether 'witches' were wiccans is a moot point, I feel, if medieval catholicism is on trial. The tenets in the New Testament are tolerance and mercy to those of differing belief. The atrocities of the dark ages have little to offer in the way of religious tolerance.

As for the KKK, I have not bothered to learn much of them. It does seem to me that if they truly believed that they were performing the work of 'god' they would do it openly so that all could see that their actions were true and just. The only thing I can see that makes the KKK christian, is that they say it is.

By 'present actions' I'm guessing you mean the situation in Ireland. As an Aussie I must confess that my exposure to it is limited. I've read a few things about it, however, and can empathise with outrage at the mindlessness of it. Frankly, IMHO both sides have descended to a level of cowardice and depravity which no amount of religious conviction can warrant, nor justify.

I would like to say that I have no problem with the catholic laity in general. Certainly I do not hold them in anyway responsible for events which happened centuries ago. I can only assume that people who refer to the catholic church as christian are ignorant of the history of the religion; and how church dogma doesn't relate to the content of a huge portion of the New Testament.

As for the pope, I fail to see how a man in his position could be ignorant of the truth.

I tend to have mostly christian beliefs, though I am not affiliated with any organised religion. For the record, my favourite book in the NT is James.

Well guys, I thought I'd step in and disgruntle a few more people again. (?).
Firstly, this 'Faith debate'. It would be foolish for me to say "yeah, I think the Cult of Ripley the Cat (or whatever) sounds like a good religion. I think I'll believe that" and just follow it all, every word, without ever questioning its falibility.
I am a very sceptical and cynical person. OFten TOO cynical, I think, and it probably makes me a 'bad person' (I know it probably infringes too much on my Christianity). However, cynisism makes me feel more secure... it's a bit hard to explain. All I know is, I can't find any good reasons for the New Testament to be lying. The Old Testament? I don't 'take it as rit' - I'm sure it isn't all literal. But the NT backs itself up so well, with things like the Gospels corresponding perfectly. If the Gospels were all made or written by one person, or a few people together in order to decieve (or whatever the reason for it being here supposedly is) us, then they would have to be very similar. But it is the different Apostles' views of the life of Jesus, the different experiances they shared or observed that make it real. Why do we accept the diary of Julias Ceasar (don't hold me to the spelling) - one man - but not the writings of four? And all the other letters etc? They all write of real places and events which were recorded by other people in other mediums (such as the Romans). I don't know anyone who can deny Jesus' existance - Christain or otherwise.
So where do we begin to draw the line? Why would most of it be fact, some fiction? What would the authors gain out of lying? Most don't claim to have seen the whole thing in a vision (apart from Revelation) - religions based soley on 'Visions' I am usually most skeptical of. Most claim to have seen it all for their own eyes.
So what about faith? Here's my personal interpretation: I have not SEEN God. I have not SEEN John the baptist. But I believe he existed. I have not SEEN Malcom X. But I belive he existed. I have not SEEN Jesus. But I belive he exists. Why? Evidence.

Finally, before you fall asleep, the 'rationality' of faith. It's all very well saying "it just isn't logical". The Bible does make sense. It is quite logical. What it comes down to is this: the Universe is a very confusing place. The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy told us that (though there don't seem to be THAT many people on h2g2 who've actually read/heard it... which is odd). The Bible doesn't explain WHY we were created. Neither does science, or all other 'major' religions. I could quite easily start picking holes in the probablitly of reality, the amazingly well planned structure for something apparently pointless, but to be frank, I'll save that until tomorrow. I don't want to waffle on fo- hey! Come back! Don't skip onto the next posti-