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

You know, every time I read things like this which claim to "prove" that Christianity is a lie, the more convinced I am that it is true!

Quite apart from:

-the large number of glaring misunderstandings about Christianity as a religion and as a faith (lets start with the claim "Every sect worships the crucifix" and take it from there)

-the inaccuracies (e.g. the Bible does not say that mary was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" - just look at the Greek where the disciple is quite clearly male, http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/chapters.html is an online version of the Greek New Testament)

-the fact that many of the "factual" arguments can be argued against (on the medical details of the crucificition try reading http://www.chrisloanshome.8m.com/Church/topics/crucifiction.htm)

-the reliance on very dubious sources (eg the Gospel of St Thomas)

-the fact that whilst at the same time as using said sources to detail what Jesus actually said and did the author claims not to believe that Jesus even existed

-the use of a Catholic version of the Bible "because the Catholic Church has committed the most crimes against humanity"

there's the fact that my faith goes beyond some "illogical religion that can be explained away" and is instead what I believe to be a personal relationship with God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit (as three parts of the same entity), that is personal to the extent that I believe I have personally experienced God's love and physically experienced the Holy Spirit within me. I'm not a Christian because I follow a religion that has been altered and misinterpreted over the centuries (as Christianity as a religion not as a faith has to differing extents over the past 2000 years, and quite naturally so I feel!) I'm a Christian because I have a faith, a belief, I'd go as far as to say a knowledge even, that Jesus Christ, God in Human form, died on the cross for my sins, and rose to life again proving His divinity and conquering death so that through faith in Him we can have eternal life.

Feel free to raise any objections to what I've said and I'll explain / debate further. Or if you prefer I can go into greater detail about my objections to this article.

"-the large number of glaring misunderstandings about Christianity as a religion and as a faith (lets start with the claim "Every sect worships the crucifix" and take it from there)" - Give me an example of a sect that does not in any way display or venerate the cross or crucifix, and I will retract the statement. "-the inaccuracies (e.g. the Bible does not say that mary was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" - just look at the Greek where the disciple is quite clearly male, http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/chapters.html is an online version of the Greek New Testament)" - The male pronoun argument is much weaker than my argument for Mary as the "disciple whom he loved." Especially when you consider that the books of the NT were all heavily edited by the Council of Nicea. The Council had good reason to deliberately obfuscate the authorship of that book. And why is his name never stated? "-the reliance on very dubious sources (eg the Gospel of St Thomas)" - What makes his gospel less reliable than any others? Since his has not been subjected to editing, his is *more* reliable than others. "-the fact that many of the "factual" arguments can be argued against (on the medical details of the crucificition try reading http://www.chrisloanshome.8m.com/Church/topics/crucifiction.htm)" - Anything can be argued against, even if the argument isn't very good. This linked article is a good example of a poor argument. "Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand." - Excuse me? "-the fact that whilst at the same time as using said sources to detail what Jesus actually said and did the author claims not to believe that Jesus even existed" - As a responsible historian, I'm examining it from both angles. While I do not believe he was a real, breathing person, it's also important to explore the fact that, whether he was a real human being, a product of legend, or both, he was definitely not who you think he was. "-the use of a Catholic version of the Bible 'because the Catholic Church has committed the most crimes against humanity'" - You've taken that completely out of context. I didn't use the Catholic version because they have committed the most crimes against humanity... I simply noted the irony. I chose that particular Bible because I find it to be an honest attempt at direct translation. The bits they had problems with, they translated as written, then made their own notes about them below. This is far different from, say, the New International Version, where if they had a problem with a verse, they simply changed the verse. "I'm a Christian because I have a faith, a belief, I'd go as far as to say a knowledge even, that Jesus Christ, God in Human form, died on the cross for my sins, and rose to life again proving His divinity and conquering death so that through faith in Him we can have eternal life." - I find it illuminating that you find it to be such a stretch to say "knowledge." The entire point of this article is that knowledge and faith are at odds with each other on this issue. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

<>

If you claim that you are a Christian only because of faith, than you are simply claiming that Christianity does not need to stand up to reason (it is faith and doesn't have to be logical). You are not giving evidence that it does or that your beliefs make logical sence.

Where do you get your knowledge?

"Give me an example of a sect that does not in any way display or venerate the cross or crucifix, and I will retract the statement." True, all Christians display the cross, or crucifix, as a symbol of their faith. Not one denomination or individual Christian actually worships it (even if your thinking of the Catholic act of crossing oneself in front of the crucifix when entering or leaving Church, this is not worshiping the actual crucifix but remembering the death it signifies)! It is a sign, to tell others that we are Christians and to serve as a visual reminder of the central aspect of our faith. The early Christians couldn't use a cross because it was too dangerous; they used a fish instead for the same purpose (the letters of the Greek word for fish, ichthus, spelling out the words iesus christus theou uios soter, Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour). By your logic they worshiped fish! "The male pronoun argument is much weaker than my argument for Mary as the "disciple whom he loved." Especially when you consider that the books of the NT were all heavily edited by the Council of Nicea. The Council had good reason to deliberately obfuscate the authorship of that book. And why is his name never stated?" I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Council of Nicea to know whether or not you are correct in saying that the books of the NT were heavily edited by it. However where is the evidence that proves it was Mary whom he loved? "-the reliance on very dubious sources (eg the Gospel of St Thomas)" - What makes his gospel less reliable than any others? Since his has not been subjected to editing, his is *more* reliable than others." Why? how do you know it isnt a later invention or subject to seperate editing, just as you claim the books of the NT to have been? I've read it (although again I know little about its history) and im afraid i remain incredulous. That doesn't mean I'm denying books other than what now forms our NT wern't written about Jesus because that would be a little strange - just consider the amount of Christian writing being produced today! However the books of the NT were included for a reason; as a Christian I believe it's because God was working in its creation. Call me illogical if you will, but surely if what I believe is true then it makes sense, if what I believe isn't true then its irrelevant which books made the final NT and which didn't anyway! ""-the fact that many of the "factual" arguments can be argued against (on the medical details of the crucificition try reading http://www.chrisloanshome.8m.com/Church/topics/crucifiction.htm)" - Anything can be argued against, even if the argument isn't very good. This linked article is a good example of a poor argument. "Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand." - Excuse me?" It was one of many I came across online, I think there are some books on it as well, if you like I could try and find out the titles. ""-the fact that whilst at the same time as using said sources to detail what Jesus actually said and did the author claims not to believe that Jesus even existed" - As a responsible historian, I'm examining it from both angles. While I do not believe he was a real, breathing person, it's also important to explore the fact that, whether he was a real human being, a product of legend, or both, he was definitely not who you think he was." Definitely? Prove it. And I don't mean just cite literature / arguments against it, because I can just cite literature / arguments for it. I mean prove it to the extent that you'd expect me to prove He is who I think He is before you'd believe me to be right. ""-the use of a Catholic version of the Bible 'because the Catholic Church has committed the most crimes against humanity'" - You've taken that completely out of context. I didn't use the Catholic version because they have committed the most crimes against humanity... I simply noted the irony. I chose that particular Bible because I find it to be an honest attempt

<>

I see.

Is that a sarcastic "I see", a condescending "I see" or an "I understand now" I see?

"True, all Christians display the cross, or crucifix, as a symbol of their faith." - And they do a whole lot more, too. I could cite all kinds of examples of it possessing magical powers, such as its role in exorcism, but that's not as illuminating as the simple fact that people kneel down before the cross and pray. Kneeling before an idol is a common element of all sorts of religions, and the very definition of idolatry.

"The early Christians couldn't use a cross because it was too dangerous; they used a fish instead for the same purpose (the letters of the Greek word for fish, ichthus, spelling out the words iesus christus theou uios soter, Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour). By your logic they worshiped fish!" - Everybody knew what the fish meant, so it was no safer than the cross. And Christianity was born in a dark time filled with marauding barbarians and apocalyptic cults. With the promised salvation, Christians wanted to be martyred, and they deliberately went out of their way to accomplish it. Why would they not bear a cross?

They didn't because the narrative tradition had not yet supplied the standard resurrection common to many Middle Eastern religions at the time (Jesus' resurrection borrows heavily from that of the Egyptian god Osiris). They had the commandment from the wisdom sayings to go forth and be "fishers of men," which was the other reason they adopted the fish as their holy symbol. The cross came much later. I'll delve more into narrative and wisdom traditions here in a bit.

"I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Council of Nicea to know whether or not you are correct in saying that the books of the NT were heavily edited by it. However where is the evidence that proves it was Mary whom he loved?" - Read this article again. I give conclusive evidence of tampering with the NT by ecumenical authorities. The Council simply brought together many such individuals for some concentrated editing. The discarded gospels were not edited, they were destroyed. But for some Gnostics in Egypt, we would have no evidence of their existence.

As for Mary being the one Jesus loved, read the article again. I give some very overt references from the Gnostic Gospels regarding Mary's relationship with Jesus, as well as a tantalizing hint overlooked by the editors of John.

"Why? how do you know it isnt a later invention or subject to seperate editing, just as you claim the books of the NT to have been? I've read it (although again I know little about its history) and im afraid i remain incredulous." - Since the Gospel of Thomas has no narrative, it is hard to date. However... before its discovery, bible scholars had determined that the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) all shared certain characteristics, and after careful study of the differences between the three of them, it was determined that there were three distinct traditions brought together in them, which they called the Wisdom (consisting of the wise and peaceful sayings of Jesus) tradition, the Apocalyptic (the violent doom sayings), and the Narrative (the attempt to put it all together with a chronology and make Jesus a real man). They further determined that the origin of the Synoptic Gospels would be a document they called Q, and that it would be a gospel of wisdom sayings only, randomly organized. A hundred years after they made this theorized the existence of Q, they found the Gospel of Thomas... a gospel of Wisdom and Apocalyptic sayings, randomly organized. If you trace the evolutionary path of the gospels from Q to the NT, you'll find Thomas was at least derived from an earlier generation than the Synoptics, where the Narrative tradition was added. It's impossible to say when the original may have been made, but the oldest surviving fragments predate the oldest surviving fragments of the NT gospels by about 150 years.

"It was one of many I came across online, I think there are some books on it as well, if you like I could try and find out the titles." - Yes, there are many, and they are not good. You are referring to works by Apologists, and you've already seen my assessment of them. The "wrists are part of the hands" statement is representative of their reasoning.

"No, faith is believing what you can't prove to be so. If I knew it wasn't so, I wouldn't believe it, because to do so would quite clearly be ridiculous! I can't prove it to be so, but I know what I have experienced in my life, and I will say that what I believe is true with the same certainty as I'd say that (using normal counting) 2+2=4 or that Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of England!" - 2+2=10 in a base 4 numbering system, 11 in a base 3 numbering system, and 100 in a base 2 numbering system. Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister. And Christianity actually is quite ridiculous.

" 2+2=10 in a base 4 numbering system, 11 in a base 3 numbering system, and 100 in a base 2 numbering system. Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister.."

Which is why I said using normal counting, and ok so the British thing was a slip due to typing at 1am, but you know what I meant!


""True, all Christians display the cross, or crucifix, as a symbol of their faith." - And they do a whole lot more, too. I could cite all kinds of examples of it possessing magical powers, such as its role in exorcism, but that's not as illuminating as the simple fact that people kneel down before the cross and pray. Kneeling before an idol is a common element of all sorts of religions, and the very definition of idolatry."

I have never seen a cross used as anything other than a symbol of faith, and I certainly don't use it as anything else! And even if a person chooses to kneel down before a cross to pray (again something I personally don't do, but then again every one's method of prayer is different to suit them!) it doesn't mean they are reverancing an idol, they are merely using the cross as a visual reminder of why they are praying to God, who is certainly not a wooden (or any other material) cross!

""The early Christians couldn't use a cross because it was too dangerous; they used a fish instead for the same purpose (the letters of the Greek word for fish, ichthus, spelling out the words iesus christus theou uios soter, Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour). By your logic they worshiped fish!" - Everybody knew what the fish meant, so it was no safer than the cross. And Christianity was born in a dark time filled with marauding barbarians and apocalyptic cults. With the promised salvation, Christians wanted to be martyred, and they deliberately went out of their way to accomplish it. Why would they not bear a cross?"

But surely if Christians worshiped the cross as an idol the early Christians would have displayed it! It is just a sign, as the fish was just a sign! And why would someone deliberately go out of their way to be martyred? Surely a dead person can't carry out God's plan on earth any longer! There's a difference between not fearing being killed for your faith and actively seeking it!

"They didn't because the narrative tradition had not yet supplied the standard resurrection common to many Middle Eastern religions at the time (Jesus' resurrection borrows heavily from that of the Egyptian god Osiris). They had the commandment from the wisdom sayings to go forth and be "fishers of men," which was the other reason they adopted the fish as their holy symbol. The cross came much later. I'll delve more into narrative and wisdom traditions here in a bit."

I don't think I quite follow you. Are you saying that after Christianity had been adopted as a religion, someone at a later date thought it a good idea to introduce crucifixion?

I will re read the article when I have more time and get back to you on the other points.

<>

More of a "I think you may have a point, but I don't entirely agree. However, I have too much homework to talk about it." "I see".

Basicly, it amounts to a non-commital grunt. I don't fully agree, but I don't see anything that I really disagree with. I don't have time to analyze it any deeper, I just wanted to make it clear that I had seen your responce.

Ok thats cool, its very hard to work out tones of voice here!

"I have never seen a cross used as anything other than a symbol of faith, and I certainly don't use it as anything else!" - From Merriam Webster's Dictionary online:

"idol 1 : a representation or symbol of an object of worship;"

They appear to echo your own words. I think that pretty much wraps us this argument.

"And why would someone deliberately go out of their way to be martyred? Surely a dead person can't carry out God's plan on earth any longer! There's a difference between not fearing being killed for your faith and actively seeking it!" - Read the NT again, the parts about those who are persecuted for their religion's sake. Then imagine you're convinced the end of the world is coming any day now (Jesus promised it would come before the end of his disciples' natural lives), you're surrounded by poverty and disease, the Visigoths have ransacked your village twice in the last three years, killed off a third of your neighbors and taken your children as slaves. You, in short, have nothing to live for except your faith. And if you are persecuted for your faith, you'll have the infinite rewards of heaven. In short, you have nothing to live for, and everything to die for. Why wouldn't you want to die for your faith?

This is why the Catholic church had to make suicide a deadly sin. They were losing too many followers. Some more good information on this subject can be found here. http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_2/ts212v.html I recommend picking it up at the paragraph beginning, "In the first years of the Christian church, ..."


"Are you saying that after Christianity had been adopted as a religion, someone at a later date thought it a good idea to introduce crucifixion?" - I'm saying that at a later time in the evolution of Christianity, the crucifixion was added. Christianity was, at the very start, based on a collection of sayings. The narrative was added later in the evolutionary stage, around 60 CE. This was still well before Constantine adopted it as the state religion. The earliest Christians adopted the fish because they didn't have a crucifixion story. Later on, church leaders denounced the cross as a pagan symbol (which is more than just a bit silly, considering the fish exactly matched the one long used to represent Isis, with the two curves representing the outline of her vulva), and the cross didn't come into use in art until the 5th century.

Yeah - But it doesn't really matter - Nothing does, Cos in a few hundred million years,(or next Tuesday afternoon), the sun'll burn out and no-one will be around to give a s**t..Except possibly the people whizzing around in space ships,(mostly American Jews probably).

<<"I have never seen a cross used as anything other than a symbol of faith, and I certainly don't use it as anything else!" - From Merriam Webster's Dictionary online:

"idol 1 : a representation or symbol of an object of worship;"

They appear to echo your own words. I think that pretty much wraps us this argument.>>

So do Jews worship the Star of David (I know Jews who wear it like Christians wear crosses). Do Sikhs worship the five K's (the bracelet, turban etc, apologies for not knowing all of them or their proper names). For that matter, do Muslim women worship their head dresses? And the latter two are far more important to display symbols of faith for members of that religion than the cross is for Christians, pretty much compulsory in some, if not all, cases!

The cross is not a representation or symbol of an object of worship. We do not worship a cross. And the crucifix is no more so than any painting or statue of Christ. They are not used as representations of Christ, they are used as signs to show we have that faith. Apologies if the term "symbol of faith" was misleading, but thats what I meant.


<<"Are you saying that after Christianity had been adopted as a religion, someone at a later date thought it a good idea to introduce crucifixion?" - I'm saying that at a later time in the evolution of Christianity, the crucifixion was added. Christianity was, at the very start, based on a collection of sayings. The narrative was added later in the evolutionary stage, around 60 CE. This was still well before Constantine adopted it as the state religion. The earliest Christians adopted the fish because they didn't have a crucifixion story. Later on, church leaders denounced the cross as a pagan symbol (which is more than just a bit silly, considering the fish exactly matched the one long used to represent Isis, with the two curves representing the outline of her vulva), and the cross didn't come into use in art until the 5th century.>>

Really. Wheres your evidence for this, it might be interesting to look at it!


<<"And why would someone deliberately go out of their way to be martyred? Surely a dead person can't carry out God's plan on earth any longer! There's a difference between not fearing being killed for your faith and actively seeking it!" - Read the NT again, the parts about those who are persecuted for their religion's sake. Then imagine you're convinced the end of the world is coming any day now (Jesus promised it would come before the end of his disciples' natural lives), you're surrounded by poverty and disease, the Visigoths have ransacked your village twice in the last three years, killed off a third of your neighbors and taken your children as slaves. You, in short, have nothing to live for except your faith. And if you are persecuted for your faith, you'll have the infinite rewards of heaven. In short, you have nothing to live for, and everything to die for. Why wouldn't you want to die for your faith?

This is why the Catholic church had to make suicide a deadly sin. They were losing too many followers. Some more good information on this subject can be found here. http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_2/ts212v.html I recommend picking it up at the paragraph beginning, "In the first years of the Christian church, ..." >>

Again whats your evidence for this? And i will read the article at some point (unfortunately too many essays to really go into this stuff properly).

But even if thats so, its not Biblical! Yes, I believe that after I die I will spend eternity with God, but I also believe I have a purpose to fulfil in this life first!

Oh, and "My_name_is_pete" - thats the amazing thing about Christianity - if its true it means that everything does matter!

Ok so I read the article (bah, its only an essay...)

Interesting... I've personally never heard any Christian teaching that Euthanasia / voluntary death / suicide is right, and I don't believe it to be so.

The early Christians as portrayed in the article were either misguided, or they have been misunderstood (nothing new there!) as i said, there's a difference between being willing to die for your faith and seeking to die for your faith. The way I've always understood it, they were Christians and were not afraid to be so even though it meant death because their faith was more important to them, but they did not become Christians with the purpose of dying and nor did they on becoming Christians think "I know, I'll die now and go to heaven".

This post has been removed.

"One of the primary things about the crucifix that makes it an idol is that it has a human depicted on it, and that human is a representation of Jesus. You worship Jesus. That makes the crucifix no different than a hundred-breasted idol of a mother-earth cult."

So it is the depiction of Jesus upon the crucifix that makes you deem it an idol and so accuse Christians of worshiping the crucifix and thus of idolatry? In that case will you conceed that the bare cross, which contains no image of any deity, is not an idol?

But the bare cross is a representation of the crucifix. An idol of an idol.

No, its not. It is a sign used to show Christianity. It is used because of Jesus' death on the cross, so if anything it is a representation of the crucifixion (as indeed is the crucifix, only the crucifix has Jesus on it to show his death wheras the cross is empty to emphasise his resurrection) but it is not a representation of the crucifix.