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

There may well be discrepances between the gosples, but remember that both Matthew and Luke used Marks Gospel as a sort of basis for their own. This means there must be some reasons for the differences, and they are that the gospels were not written as absolute historical accounts but stories by people for people, and all for different reasons Matthew to show jews jesus was the messiah, mark was a quick account, Luke for gentiles and John deeply rooted in meaningful rather than literal accounts. And as for christians and the old testament, pork and seafood probably couldn't be eaten by the jews as they would have lived in the desert and it would have gone off, when jesus came he knew followers would be out of the desert and soon preservation would get better as well as faster transportation meaning for was fresher. Sheep are not sacrificied as christians believe this was a ritual pointing to jesus. So although the it may not be followed to the letter, the law is still important and it should be followed in meaning, see Matthew 22:37-40, a message in the law and often used by the prophets, such as in Isaiah 58.2 And if you think Peter didn't like Paul, read Peter 2:15+16. And the spear in the side is also mentioned in the book of Psalms as a prophecy possibly, it mention of water pouring out siggest the water filled sack near the heart was punctured, resulting in death. And no metion of a cross is in the bible, it could have been a tree or pole, the lack of details for his death scene supports the idea the gospels ar not mainly historical but meaningful, the point wasn't how he died but that he did, and why he did.

It may be that you are right and the bible hasbeen doctored, maybe by Luke (ha ha), so our faith should come from God, talk to him now

Thank you for deepening my understanding of faith

God bless you all

"the gospels were not written as absolute historical accounts but stories by people for people, and all for different reasons"

At least we both agree that they're fiction.

They aren't fiction, nor are they fact, it is like exaggerating when you explain something to someone, what your saying is not technically true but it communicates feelings and moods and emphasises important points better

What are you saying? What are the important points? What, if anything, is to be gained from the Bible?

When you explain something, you're generally careful to avoid contradicting yourself. The bible could do a better job of explaining things if it had any sort of coherence. That lack of coherence undermines everything it attempts to teach, and much of what *is* coherent is barbaric. I find very little in that book that has any relevance today. You'd do better to read Aesop if you're looking for parables.

try reading the bible as a guidebook for you life and not a historical document and you will see how significant it is

try reading the bible as a guidebook for you life and not a historical document and you will see how significant it is

And your comment that when John mentioned the follower that Jesus loved maent Mary you are wrong, he frequently uses this phrase to describe himself as in John 13:23

As a historical document, it has *some* validity, if for nothing else than as a window into the beliefs and superstitions that motivated an Western culture. As a guidebook for life, it has absolutely no value. The Levitical laws are abominable, it provides poor role models, it promotes homophobia, xenophobia (as well as xenocide), misogyny, violence, injustice, slavery, etc. It has more bloodshed, page for page, than the entire works of Steven King.

John 13:23... the last supper. I see nothing that says the word "John," just a reference to a disciple whom Jesus loves, and this disciple is laying across his bosom. How very intimate. It sounds very much like how I watch television with my girlfriend.

Take a look at Da Vinci's painting of "The Last Supper." You can find an image of it online via any search engine. Tell me what the gender is of the disciple immediately to Jesus' right. Da Vinci, at least, agrees with me...

You're making a terrible assumption if you believe that the book of John was actually written by a disciple of that name. You'll never find that name mentioned in the book, and it was written long after any disciple of Jesus would have passed away.

I have little time to speak, but still:
It promotes homophobia? Where did this term come from? Why is the belief that homosexuality is wrong referred to as a phobia, or as a bad thing? Thats like using the word 'murderphobic' as in insult to somebody who is insensitive and thoughtless enough to believe that murder is wrong!

I don't see the injustice in 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, soul for soul'.

Slavery was allowed when the slave was in debt and couldn't repay the debt. What alternative do you suggest? And it is worth noting that there were laws that demanded that slaves were well cared for.

And as for violence, this was only allowed when God had specifically given permission. And if God wants to permit a battle to be fought, what right do you have to tell him he's wrong? He gave life. He had the right to take it if he wants to.

And there endeth the conversation.
Nice one "Insight" (sic). I could employ you to clear out parties that have gone on too long - a few well chosen pearls of wisdom and suddenly the will to live would drain out of everyone in the room like a punctured boil.

Just wondering, Insight, where you got that idea of 'homophobia'.
Murder involves non-consent, and a victim. Homosexuality does not. Care to enlighten?

The relative badness of the two acts wasn't the point I was making. I just don't agree with the term 'homophobia'.
A phobia is when someone is scared of something. Someones disliking homosexual behaviour or individuals doesn't imply that they are scared of it/them. There is no phobia, we simply believe that it is wrong.

I prefer the term 'homoskeptic', which I feel is more value-neutral. Though it should be admitted that there are some who *are* genuinely afraid of gays, for one reason or another.

-Martin

Aye (fear of the unfamiliar also, suspects.)

Actually, I think "homophobia" is a pretty accurate word.

It's true, there are people who are, to use Lucinda's word "homoskeptic", which is to say their attitude is "well, it's not for me, and I don't understand it, and to be honest I don't like the idea much, but hey, whatever floats your boat...". (I'd count myself among that lot). Gay people should have no problem with that sort of person any more than vegetarians should fear meat-eaters, or vice-versa for that matter.

On the other hand, there are people whose apparent intention is to make life as uncomfortable as possible for gay people, and to reassure them that they are going to hell for what they're doing, and that they're all sorts of nasty things. It's often the case that these people believe gays should not be in positions of responsibility, such as, for instance, teaching. When asked why, their explanations usually involve the apparent "promotion" of a homosexual lifestyle. They seem to be under the impression that it's possible to "catch" being gay. They further seem worried that their children or they themselves might "catch" being gay off a gay person if they spend too much time around them. This is about as irrational as I can imagine.

Sounds exactly like a phobia to me.

H.
Heterosexual, but what YOU stick in YOUR orifices is YOUR business.

btw, what happened to Section 28 in t'end?

Isn't it a shame Quixotic and Colonel Sellers haven't been around for such a long time.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards U197895)