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

Well, I'm back for but a brief moment, can't stay for more than a few posts..

"Religions do not deal with a "Why?" question! They don't explain WHY Jesus was, WHY God is and WHY we are."

Yes the bible does. If you'd care to read it, it says plenty of times why Jesus came to Earth, and what the purpose of our existence is.

"They explain (very poorly) HOW events happened - HOW the world was created; HOW Jesus healed."

No they don't, they say what He did, not what processes took place. They explain that it took place through the movement of the Holy Spirit, and why this was necessary, but don't give "build your own spirit" circuit diagrams.

"So you can't trust a photograph yet you can trust a two thousand year old book that contradicts itself hundreds of times - that makes sense."

I don't even trust myself. I don't trust the words of the Bible. I don't even believe that that bible itself is 100% innerrant. (although it is probably the most inerrent book ever published) However, I belive that reading the Bible under revelation, as part of living the Christian life, is inestimably useful. And as a graphic artist myself, I know _exactly_ how much you can trust photgraphs. Two days work in photoshop can "prove" anything.

"religions have no relation to the real world"

Probably not. However as a spiritualist and a Christian, and someone who believed that Jesus was anti-religion, I can't see how you'd have a problem with that. Christianity, with its fundamental messages of love, grace and forgiveness, are very relevant to a world which is more messed up today than it's ever been.

"What I hate about your opinion about scientific evidence is that as science disproves religion at the moment you dismiss it. But if science proved God, I wonder what your view about it will be then."

Exactly the same. Must I reiterate my views on science? I don't distrust science because it disproves God, (it does no such thing, as I said, but who's counting) I distrust it because it disproves itself every 50-150 years or so. Walk into any physics department, chemistry department, or biology department (and don't get me started on psychology) in any university, and you will find at least one researcher who disagrees with the rest of his colleagues about something. Put 100 researchers in a room and you'll get 100 different hypotheses, 100 different research methods and 100^100 different conclusions!

As for my pagan festival, well, we did steal it, but it is _now_ a christian festival. Please try not to stay in the past.

Nothing is known about God

You want a reason people will tell you different things?

1) The "three blind men and the elephant" analogy could fit

2) Ask two people to describe a penny

3) Ask two brothers to describe their mother

4) Ask two people from this board to describe you.

Do you think you'll get the same answer? You are bound to get variations.

Oh, as for KKK etc. "If a man says he loves Me, but hates his brother, he is a liar." The KKK say they are Christians, but this no more makes them Christians than going to Church does. "People will know you by the love you have for each other."

Regards

"I've talked to Christians about this and they claim evil people claiming their Christians are not really Christians and that only people who are "like Christ" are true Christians. Therefore I conclude that there are no Christians in existance nor will there ever will be until this definition is relaxed."

Your colclusion is flawed because it is based upon a misrepresentation (or misinterpretation) of what is held to be true. No one can be truly "like Christ" but all Christians strive to be. We are not afraid to fail, because we have grace to fall back on, and love. A true Christian is one who loves. And I can only say from my experience that my attitudes towards people changed when I really got to know God (or, the part of God the He lets me get to know). As someone who is, by nature, pessimistic and melancholic, I see no earthly reason why I should have an unnatural urge to love people and help them. Quite frankly, as I have said before, I can only offer two explanations for this:

1) I am insane. I have questioned my sanity before, even when people pointed out that insane people do not question their sanity. However, the part which you would claim is the "wierd" part of me is the part which I would claim keeps me functioning in normal society.

2) I am at least partly right, and an external spiritual influence has changed the way I look at life.

The change cannot be brought about by "the church" as anyone who belongs to a "church" will tell you that it is the worst place in the world to try and "learn" love.

To deny God is to deny me. Do you deny me my existence? Can you explain to me why I work and think like I do? I do not attempt this with you, I merely try and back up my claims. Merely attacking "religion" achieves nothing, because that just makes you more like Jesus!

If all human conciousness can be defined as being electrochemical reactions, we've got a damn lot of explaining to do as to why we still lock people up for murder.

"I do, in fact, find it very hard to understand how *anyone* can believe in Christianity... but then, a lot of people believe in other, equally insane things..."

YEEESSSSSSSS!!!!! Finally, someone willing to come out and tell me I'm insane!! I see it all soooo clearly now, especially when it's as rationally argued as "As for dying... yeah, you just sort of stop. Like being permanently asleep without dreaming." A perfectly succinct point which shows every sign of a rational and trained thought process which has not just been blindly trained to believe one thing!

I saw a guy who fooled around with snakes on the tv. I dunno whether he was a Christian.

As for this "we, can, however, hope that natural selection will sort things out in the long run", it is a futile hope, as Christianity is not spread genetically.

Oh, and "Admittedly, some things - poetry, art - might be *difficult* to understand scientifically" - Actually, by its very nature art is _impossible_ to understand. You yourself said why - it is an emotional response by the human mind. Until we understand fully the human mind, poetry and art, which are so inextricably linked with emotions, will remain free from being "understood," a situation which people may hope continues. The last thing artists need is some scientific bloke like you saying that he can analyse something which they don't even understand fully - and they painted the bloody thing!! You can talk about phycho-chemical reastions to aesthetic stimuli until the cows come home, but all the poets in the world will laugh in your face. To try and find comparable stimuli in a Duffy and a Yeates scientifically is as futile as trying to find proof of God!

As for your knowledge of particle mechanics, you once again demonstrate why I mistrust science. No one knows how many particles there are, but the theories range from 1(there is one particle in the world which moves backwards and forwards in time, all other particles are this particle, moving either forwards or backwards) to infinity (the universe is a random pattern emerging in an infinite sea of quarks). Your newspaper technology supplement level of knowledge is quite adequate to tell you all you need to know about the world, and trust me, it don't get much better than that!!

Hmm...

Have read The Gospel of Thomas (Patterson & Meyer) and the Acts of Peter and The Twelve Aspostles. Have delayed reading the apocalypses, as they are likely to be like Revelation, requiring more thought and prayer then just reading. Apart from one line, which the translators noted "probably added later" I see no problems with this Jesus, Him being exactly the same Jesus as in my Gospels. What's all the fuss about?

McD

First of all, I've already made the statement before that your personal attacks are not welcome. Indeed, by resorting to such, you prove yourself to be a very poor Christian.

Art does not try to be an explanation for the world and how it came about. Religion does. And as for a statement you made earlier, about 'science disproves itself ever 100-150 years', how does this make a 2000 year old religion relevant today? But science doesn't disprove itself, it merely becomes clearer as more pieces fall together. Today, there are several competing theories on subatomic particles. After some study, some or perhaps all will be disproved. This is the nature of scientific inquiry. Someone has to suggest the theory before it can be disproven. As for the God theory, that has been disproven years ago, but some people just won't let it go.

Why do we lock up murderers? This is a stupid question, but I'll indulge you: to protect the herd. Because giving them lobotomies or mind-numbing chemicals to inhibit that is considered anathema in our society. Because you can't release them under their own cognizance with drugs that help regulate that, since they may decide not to take them. Because you have to set an example to the rest of the community. Because...

GB does have a point, McDuff. I realize you are being purposely provocative, but the tone that you are writing in does not seem to be that of a Christian. Haggai 1:7 "Thus says the Lord of Hosts: consider your ways." I do not mean this to put you down, but please consider that as a Christian, you are a reflection of Christ to the world. In Christ we have freedom from all law, but do not let your freedom cause another to stumble. For the sake of brevity I'll leave you with this statement from the Apostle Paul: "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more." 1 Corinthians 9:19.

Yours in Christ,
ddombrow

You're just getting warmed up. Try the Gospel of Phillip next. You'll see him give the lie to the virgin birth: 'Some say, 'Mary conceived by the holy spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying.' You'll see him talk about Sophia, or hidden wisdom, which is part and parcel of Gnosticism, and many other mystery cults that floated about in Jesus' time. You'll see him mention the intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene. You'll see him referred to as 'The Nazarene,' as opposed to the bastardized 'of Nazareth' rubbish, since Nazareth wasn't in existence until several decades after Jesus died. And the best part is on the ressurection, where it is properly described as the symbolic act, and not to be taken literally: 'Those who say that the lord died and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then died.' Yep, lots of good stuff in Philip, and Mary also has some good bits. The Act of Peter is, well, disturbing, to say the least. There's an interesting line in The Letter of Peter to Philip, where they say Jesus was crucified on a tree. And The Sophia of Jesus Christ is filled with reams of heretical stuff, all coming from the mouth of Jesus. I'd wish you happy reading, but you appear to be someone with little patience and a closed mind, so this stuff will probably only anger you.

I may be a little confrontational here but I think you could perhaps replace the world Christianity in this thread with pretty much any other word in the dictionary. The way I see it Christianity doesn't stand up to some reasoning, neither does science (no one really knows anything it's mostly theory), Buddism, Satanism, capitalism, communism, love, hate, chaos theory, good, bad, beauty, cosmology, etc., etc, (you can prove me wrong on some of these but that's not the point)
No matter what view point someone has the simple truth is that it won't stand up to everyone elses reasoning. The wonderful thing about us humans is that we have free will. we can make decisions and we have the ability to think and decide things based upon our own experiences and fealings.

The fact that some people think faith in God is illogical or incorrect, or that some Christians think they are the only people on the planet who are "right" only goes to prove how diverse the human race is.

Unless we all link minds and fully understand each other (collective intelligence, ie the Borg in star trek....sorry!!!) we will always have differences of belief. I don't think humans are likely to agree to a collective intelligence though. (I certainly wouldn't)

Is this thread really about Christianity and it's inability to stand up to reason? Or is it really about humans and our inability to tollerate things that don't stand up to our reasoning?

I'm going to let your own post stand agaisnt itself here, McDuff; none of your points were valid and anyone able to reason logically can see that. If you're not willing to accept the basic principles that I accept, I can't argue with you... in the same way that, if you don't accept that one add one equals two, we can't discuss mathematics.

I will just say, however, that natural selection *will* take care of Christianity... genetics is not the only medium through which characterists can spread. 'Memes', I believe, is the technical term... ideas transferred between minds. Religion is a meme... and, if it is detrimental to its hosts - which it probably is - it'll eventually die out.

Perhaps I came over as insulting in my original post... for which I would like to apologise. You came over as insulting in your post, but I'll assume that was becuase I upset you somewhat... look, I don't want this to turn into a full-blown argument. Therefore I'd feel happier if you forget everything I've said, I'll forget everything you've said, and we can go our separate ways. You're clearly an intelligent person, McDuff... no reason why *you* should be wasting your time arguing about all this stuff as well. Go out and make the world a better place...

26199

My views on religion/atheism notwithstanding, my views on *arguing* about religion would seem to be somewhat justified... this post is almost the longest post posted in the last 24 hours, and all it does is argue against a previous post which itself was arguing against a previous post which itself... etc.

There really isn't any *point* to arguing about religion. It just wasted peoples' time, and it never leads anywhere.

Forum-based arguments, that is. Real-time arguments are a little more useful... hey, there's an idea... are you on ICQ, McDuff? Then we could have a *real* discussion... in fact, it could be interesting.

26199

In fact - I missed this before - not only is your post above one of the longest in the last 24 hours, McDuff, your average post length over the last 24 hours is longer than anyone else's... with GargleBlaster, in the other corner (so to speak) coming in a close second.

Just think how much happier you'd be if you spent all that time doing something *fun*...

26199

The first one!

I see what you mean but the difference between some of the things you list and others is logic and openmindedness. Christianity is based on some facts written in a book many millenia ago. Science is based on theorising to explain fact. Science is based on proof. Over many years observing different phenomena science has been able to provide better and better explanations for things. Sometimes they were wrong but they were moved on from. If an occurance conflicts with a theory, the theory is altered and corrected or a new one comes along. Logic follows through - of course some people do not want to change from old theories but the fact is, over time, theories are corrected.

Thankfully, the influence of the church is far weaker than in the past. Before, many new theories were hushed out and their innovator damned a heretic and convicted. Convention and ignorance still slow down the process but freedom of thought is much greater now.

You say one can put any word to replace xtianity. Well, let's take Darwinism. Yes, it has big areas where evidence is lacking. But it's still questioned. All scientists don't rely on evolution - they question it. But until a better theory is produced this one sticks. No good evidence to draw out evolution has come up yet but if it does, it will be investigated and the theory either dismissed or altered. That's the difference - scientific theories don't dismiss logical argument - xtianity does!

Well put, cynical one. The biggest reason we need to address this xtianity thing is because for centuries, all the competing theories were being systematically wiped out by the Church. In science, competing theories are generally presented together, and the student has the opportunity to adopt the less mainstream theory and go out and work to prove it. If successful, it becomes the new mainstream theory, and the old one goes away.

We live in a society that has finally begun to lift the lid on religion and question, which had been impossible until the 1850's, and information has only been available since the 1950's, and much of that discovered information has only become available to non-Catholic scholars in the last decade. Research is being conducted right now on all these documents, and others are being hunted out.

As this stuff is being analyzed, new theories are abounding. In order to test these theories, we need further study. But the one thing that is consistent in all of the research in this field is that the Church has gotten it all completely wrong.

Of course, people still approach religious scholarship in that time honored way, which is to say 'I'm right, you're wrong', then place their fingers in their ears and go 'Lalalalalalalalala...I'm not listening to you...lalalalalalala....' I've met a lot of people who have become aware of all this information, but still found ways to reconcile it with their religion. That's fine. But the people who refuse to listen are the problem. Ignorance is always a problem, and ignorance coupled with superstition is the most dangerous combination in society.

GB. You are right. "ignorance is the problem" . Most peoiple who argue the stupidity of the christian faith have no personal experience of blind faith in GOD. The hysteria and entrapment going on in churches throughout the land. It almost ammounts to brainwashing! These "evangelical" christians who get together on a sunday morning and are guided into a state of adoration and subtitude by simple techniques using music and suggestive preaching. Having escaped the world of christianity I now realise that it is nothing but another cult intent on growth and power.

I have, in the past been subjected to pastors of my church trying to cast demonds out of me, making me admit to all my sins, sent on Christian therepy (that was the last straw) The problem is that many christians have such faith in their God that all of this seems to be acceptable in the never ending search for godliness.

Untill you have experienced this kind of personal, real christian torture in the name of God you can never understand just how powerful and distructive faith in the church can be.

I still hold true in my belief that we are all entitled to our own individual faiths and beliefs, that we should forget about religion and look at peoples hearts.

If I could irradicate Christianity from this world then i would. However people still have free will and so are entitled to go on believing. No matter how stupid.

My aim has never been to fight in the cornor of christianity. only to make people realise that as equals we are all entitled to our beliefs whether right or wrong. What right have we got to change peoples faith?

I'm not interested in conversions, and, as I'm sure you can see from the discussions in here, if that were my goal, I'd be failing miserably. Xtianity is not conducive to open-mindedness, and it requires tons of that to be able to put aside programming that has been continuous since the cradle.

I feel your pain about the terrors of xtianity, too. I was once suckered into a weekend of such mind warping by Southern Baptists. They came onto the naval base on Saturday morning saying they were getting a bunch of dudes together to play some football, after which we'd get dinner and a place to sleep that wasn't the base. I'd always loved a good football game, and this was going to take place on a regulation field, with refs and everything, although it was only flag. Still, I had nothing better to do, and away I went.

We played a full regulation game, and, even though it was flag, it was still very physical, since blocking was still allowed, and lots of times people would make a tackle, either out of enthusiasm or because it was easier than grabbing the flags. Thus it was that some 20 bruised, tired sailors were brought over to the church for a meal, after *bonding* with our captors on the field.

Before the meal was served, we were treated to the worst mental bashing imaginable, where, in the name of God, we were told how completely worthless and sinful we were, how we were going to burn in hell unless we *confessed* that night and agreed to take Jesus into our lives. This seemed to go on for forever, but in all probability only lasted an hour or two. At any rate, 19 tired, bruised sailors found their way to private counseling sessions, where they cried like little girls and begged to be saved. The next morning, 19 sailors found themselves up in the dunk tank, getting baptised before hundreds of strangers. I'm rather proud of my strength of will and character, that I didn't fall into the trap. And this was at a stage of my life where I still believed in God, but the whole experience was too creepy. I managed to stave them off by saying I'd already, as a Catholic, been baptised at birth, and that I was already "saved," even if I disagreed with them on the details. Even the church service was creepy. The preacher railed on about the King James Bible being the only true one, and the rest were the products of Satan. I wonder how he'd have reacted to knowing that it was commisioned by the Puritans. There seemed to be a contest in the congregation to out-Christian each other. One dude would give his Bible a loud thump...then another would slap his leg with it and yell "Praise Jesus!' Not to be outdone, the previous dude would wave his in the air and yell more drivel, only to be followed by Dude B smacking himself upside his head with his Bible. The topper was, of course, to see all these fairly normal, well-adjusted individuals that came with me to the football game dressed in what appeared to be a medical gown, looking incredibly sheepish as they were drowned in turn by the firebrand preacher thirty feet above the altar.

So my answer to you, Mr. Monkey, is that I agree with you...faith should not be imposed. I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone; they all come into these conversations of their own free will and offer what they see as reasonable arguments, and I analyze them to see if I can agree with them. I in turn answer them with what I feel are reasonable arguments. I know I'm not going to win any converts, but at the very least, I'm educating a few people, thus removing the "ignorance" part of the equation. I certainly don't take people out, work the crap out of them for a few hours, then withhold food from them until I've completely shamed them into thinking their worthless children. The food bill alone renders the whole thing beyond my means.

Erm... surely the reason we lock people up for murder is to stop them doing it again?

Actually, I *am* of the opinion that all human conciousness can be explained by normal, physical interactions in the brain... and, yes, I do have problems with the current justice system. Who doesn't?

Basically, the whole idea of the law being there to inflict punishment is flawed, IMHO... it should be designed simply to keep crime levels to a minimum, because that's the important thing.

26199

26...

I just noticed your comments about real-time chat, and I must disagree. I find this format to be more conducive to this sort of conversation for two reasons. One is that it is easier to compose yourself, and write dispassionately, since you've got plenty of time to post your response. With the exception of a certain hothead, everyone has been well behaved in this thread, and I think that's a main reason. The other is that it is easier to hold each other accountable for differing points. If I offer some radical interpretation, and cite a reference for it, the other person can look it up and verify my claims. In real-time conversations, there is no way to do this, so you end up with the other saying 'you *may* have a point' and vowing to look it up some other time, and completely forgetting, or you get an emphatic 'it doesn't say that!' Neither course is profitable to the discussion.

Ok, I figure that to understand all that's been said you'd have to have been following this thread from the first posting. I'm new in this thread but want my say. If some matter's been sorted out or I'm talking claptrap, please forgive me as I'm just a wicked sinner.

There were many points I wanted to cover, but either Gargleblaster beat me to 'em or I've fogotten. But there's one thing I find hard to figure out.

Bad dudes not being christians ever.

Ok, imagine I'm a christian, and I put a gun to somebody's head. The moment I pull the trigger, I'm not a christian, right? Or more precisly, the moment I even consider putting the gun to a head I'm not a christian, right?
People who think bad thoughts, basically, can never be christians, right?
If this is true than I am hearing bloody lot of lies about how popular christianiyty is with trillions of people in the faith! -Nobody- has never thought wicked things! "The evil that men do lives on and on..."
This figures that an awful lot of christian leaders were not actually christians cos they were bud dudes, right? Jeepers creepers...

Ok, flame away...