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

Hi Adelaide.

For just a few regarding women, compare Heathen Sceptic's qoutes in post 20435 with your own in 20440. Also, like you said yourself, differences are bound to exist between the Old and New Testaments, but my previous question still stands: How do you decide which view is the proper Christian way to behave?

<>

A very good question, android!

Who gets to edit and why?

I've never understood pick-and-mix Christianity when it comes to interpreting the Holy Bible.

Who the hell are these people who think they know more than those who supposedly originally wrote down the Word of God? And what gives them the right to interpret the Bible to suit themselves?


az

azahar, I have never understood your degree of vehement anger about such things! If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you care so much about how we who do "interpret" it? You say:
<< And what gives them the right to interpret the Bible to suit themselves?>>

To suit themselves? What do you mean by that statement? Who is interpreting it to suit themselves? Your question implies that you are measuring against an interpretation you accept - and yet, you *don't* accept it! Please explain!

hi Andrew,

I was interested in hearing your response to my posting 20441, with the link to an article, which ended with the quote:

"Catholic feminists who snatch at the straw of the Pope's statement that housework should be paid for should remember that Wojtyla cannot imagine a world in which housework is done by anyone but women. His Holiness's lavatory is cleaned by nuns."


Later in posting 20460 to TRPhil you state that:

<>

So how did you decide that your particular personal god exists? I am not being antagonistic here (I make this disclaimer because I am afraid you simply see be as being belligerent, which isn't the case at all) I truly want to know.

Especially because your God does not allow for any other gods to exist. I wonder how you can be so sure about this triple-O God you have chosen for yourself. And does this mean that you feel that other people's beliefs are invalid? That *your* God is the only One and True God?

I saw that we got off a bit on the wrong foot. You saw me as 'attacking you' when I actually wasn't. Though I *was* seriously questioning you about some of your postings.

As I recall, I mostly took umbrage at the notion that you felt you could talk down to me since you thought I was only here to talk about bats. And then you told me you hadn't talked down to me 'on purpose'. Well, whatever.

Meanwhile, I did live with the RC god concept throughout my childhood and I found it - in retrospect - a terrible thing to do to any child. At the time it just made me feel terrible and gave me nightmares. I mean, what is this all about - to make small children feel they are born sinners, that they *have* to give their lives up to this God or else they will burn in hell?

So I am curious to find out how you justify all this to yourself.

And what is this 'qualified sense' you spoke about?

az

Hi TRPhil

Part of the problem is taht analysis can only ever proceed back so far.

Logically there would seem little to distinguish "Why does the Universe exist?" - "It just does." from "Why does God exist?" - "He just does." and this could be taken as being the point at which human understanding breaks down.

As someone with a logical/scientific background I take the bottom line of existence as being energy, defined at its simplest as a "Universal Abstract Conserved Quantity." Which often also seems to be the sort of God that attempts at logical proof come up with.

Noggin

Interpret the bible?
I have tried, but man is there some amount of stuff to get through. You can interpret it any way you want.
I don't understand how people can use the bible to justify actions that a clearly wrong.
I think we all know right from wrong, even those of us who don't read the bible on a regular basis.
Or am I wrong?

Andrew,

Sorry if this looks like we're hounding you but I was about to ask you the same question: if you believe that "obviously there is a god" but also that "it is not self-evident" then what is it that makes it so obvious?

I asked you a similar question once before about whether you could explain why you believe without referring to scripture but I'm not sure we ever pinned down the answer.

F

hi Della,

<>

Because those very people are attempting to change very humane laws that allow a woman to have an elective termination, in a safe manner. That they are saying that homosexuals are 'unnatural' and should not be allowed the right to be recognized in society as 'married couples' should they choose to want to be married. For starters.

<>

To suit what the Catholic church says is 'right and proper'. To treat people who are not Christian as second-class citizens, as people who do not count or matter. To treat women as though their main objective in life is to pro-create and take care of their husband and their family before considering whatever else they might find personally rewarding.

Did you read the letter to the Bishops, Della?

az

mahargovich,

"...Or am I wrong?"

I don't know. What does the Bible say about it?

F

<>

Who does that, mahargovich? To quote azahar, I am not asking to be difficult, I really want to know! Can you give an example of someone using the Bible to justify something that's clearly wrong?

<>

Um, that homosexuals are unnatural and deviants?


az

No, I didn't read the letter to the Bishops, but I have read some screwy interpretations of it (and some saner ones.) Many people are talking as if it means purdah, foot-binding, burqas and rape-camps as in the late Balkan unpleasantness, for women, which is frankly absurd! The Bible has nothing to say about abortion, but many Christians do. I know that your friend Hoo claims that I am a mad conservative, pro-death penalty, pro-war, the "whole nine yards" as you might say. But I am not any of those things,as he well knows, and I oppose abortion for the same reasons I oppose war and capital punishment. Such things are all anti-life.
<>

Do you have any idea what I, or any other Christian actually believes, or do you just attack the same "straw man" that Hoo seems perenially obsessed with? I have been a feminist all my adult life, it's just that feminism to me means *more* than just being pro-abortion, or "gay-friendly".

I can.

The Pope (no less) is promoting a dangerous and wholly inaccurate campaign in South Africa against the use of condoms. The Catholic Church leaders there are telling people that condoms leak and help to spread HIV. This is singularly untrue. They are also discouraging married couples from using them where one partner is HIV positive so it is inevitable the other partner will contract a fatal illness. They are doing this because condoms are a form of contraception and contraception is against their religious principles.

I agree that it is better that people abstain from sex rather than take even the small risk of sex with an infected partner using a condom. I even applaud the church for preaching abstinence. I realise however that people will not abstain entirely and in this case they need to be encouraged to use safe practices, not condemmed.

F

Here you go, Della, read the letter for yourself:

http://www.vis.pcn.net/doc/040731x_en.htm

And get back to us on your considered thoughts about what the Vatican is saying about the role of women in society.


az

ps

<<

Della, I am not Hoo.

<

Again, I am not Hoo. Nor do I consider myself a feminist. But I have a few Christian feminist friends, so yes, I do have an idea of what they can believe in whilst maintaining their religious convictions.

I also know that the Cardinal of Seville has stated publicly that he is pro homosexual marriages, that he feels this would make our society stronger. This is a guy who doesn't have his head buried in the ground, it would seem. He has defied the Pope! Gee willikers, will he now burn in hell?

He doesn't seem to be too worried about this.

az

Fathom,I think the Bible said I was wrong . Somewhere in the book of Numbers I think.

Azahar, as Homer said, 'about as natural as a cat chasing a dog'.
Then again my cat used to scare the bejesue out of our dog.
You got my point tho.


Who here is not a deviant?
Let him (or her) with no sin, and all that stuff.

What does distinguish them for many is the idea that God is a necessary being. Hence He doesn't just happen to exist - but must exist. Nobody says this of the universe.



I don't like 'quantity' there, Nogg. That presupposes that something is measuarable. What units, what instrument and what is the numerical answer? I do like the idea of the Creator God as energy, although 'Love' is more traditional. "The Power of Love" rings a bell. Song lyric? So there might well be a connection.

toxx

Hi Az, Fathom

Thanks for the questions, and if we got off on the wrong foot to start with, az, it's not a problem now.

I suppose the first point is that the existence of God is not self-evident. This is clear, otherwise agnostics and atheists would not be so common (for example). But I do think it is obvious in the qualified sense that one says of a mathematical conclusion 'this is trivial' - having done all the preceding donkey-work.

On the other hand, the above is only true of the existence of God as creator. One cannot learn about his history or bibliography (as Toxx said) from first principles. You can only arrive at the Christian God through faith (I think that's probably the whole point, in fact). So while I am prepared to justify my belief in a creator through reason, I admit I would not be able to justify my *Christian* faith without reference to scripture.

In my case I grew up believing in God, had a teenage falling-away and then looking into the matter decided that God did exist after all (I looked into the 'five ways' of St Thomas Aquinas, which overall convinced me - I have an entry about them on h2g2, but I can't remember the location!), and that he was the Christian God I had learned about (the Gospels - and their scriptural references - saw to that). But I wouldn't claim that I started from nothing, because I remember when I was very young deciding that God must exist.

I will have to break here and respond to the other points presently.

Hi az!
On some of the other points:

<>

I believe that God is only one, to start with. So there can be no other. That doesn't mean that other people's beliefs are invalid from a personal point of view, and I believe in democracy as a practical way of running things. I vote according to my beliefs, but I accept the majority view - that doesn't rule out campaigning, incidentally.

<>

I didn't feel happy with the idea that God knew everything I was up to, until I cam across the specifically Christian concept of Divine Filiation: that we are children of God, so he looks after us as such and loves us. I would not feel happy if God were just a judge. So the result of this is I have hope that God will give us every allowance for our weaknesses. What we *really* have to avoid is malice.

<>

A nice epigram. I don't see that in the letter itself or in Pope's mind, although I wouldn't put it beyond some others.

I think the distinction is maybe between obvious and self evident.

Most mathematics, for instance is technically self evident, but a lot of it is not obvious until you've done a lot of hard work.

Noggin