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

Trig


(Math, am I right in thinking that to your mind the Christian God is in fact just another god who's got big ideas and is pretending to be more important than he actually is? Was it you who called him a 'jumped-up desert wright'? If so, is this same spirit behind all the Abrahamic religions, or are there a multiplicity of different spirits, one for each monotheistic religion, each masquerading as the Creator of the Universe? Will he/they get into trouble for this deception?)


No, that was me

The full original quote should be 'a jumped up desert wight with good PR and a nasty line in genocide' but it appears that that particular image has now acheived internet fame, as I have had it quoted baks to me on many fora by people who had no idea it was originally mine

Fame comes in so many ways...

I don't think the god of the OT is the same as the one of the NT, but you see, if you are a monotheist, and you get two people getting contradictory messages, you have to somehow square that...

I go by the actions of the followers of a deity in deciding about the personality of that deity. Whatever they call themselves.

There may well be deception going on, there are certainly wights out there who love trouble and who love beauty etc. etc. etc.

But if you are only expecting a message from one deity, then you are not going to even think that the words you get might be from someone else, are you?

--

Jez

<>

In other words the trail goes cold with the actions of the followers. Why posit a deity at all?

Noggin

Noggin - I only look at things that way when I have no personal experience of the deity concerned.

My own deities are known to me.

The questions were about the monotheist deity/ies.

--

Jez - who doesn't posit any deity, any more than she posits other people.

<>

I know a few monotheists who would say the same thing (except in the singular, of course).

Noggin

Hi mich2ael

Let us start at the end:
"I'm sure none of the above will have gone any way towards pacifying your sincerely held views on all things christian, but I nevertheless hope that we remain on friendly terms."

I'm on pretty much good terms with everyone around these parts so don't worry about it

"em so do I take it (from posting 26461) that you're not quite ready for me to lead you in the sinner's prayer then?! "

You would be quite correct there. I broke with the Mother Church over thirty years ago and haven't looked back (lest I be turned into a pillar of salt).

"Still very recent for the time."

Not at all. The Roman period was possibly the first in which we begin to have useful contemporaneous accounts of events. This is why many historians are so doubtful about the Gospels. Why aren't there any non-Christian writers recording the startling events in Palestine?

"I presume you mean that christians had a hand in it!"

Not at all. But I have been reading on this subject most of my life and have yet to find any evidence whatsoever to support the claims of the Gospels. I would be truly fascinated if you can direct me to some(?).

"You seem to doubt the authenticity of all christian literature and literature written by people who may in some way be sympathetic to christian thought?!"

This doubt is well based in these people's reliance on the Gospels themselves rather than upon contextual analysis of the social history of the time.

"If my observation is correct we have little common ground."

We can do if you have an open and enquiring mind.

"I think this must be a VERY liberal interpretation of the first council of Nicaea."

No, it is anything but. It is a pragmatic interpretation of the facts. Constantine was a lifelong pagan who longed to have a social control mechanism to unite his fractious empire. A monotheistic, state-supported religion, with a common doctrine was a very practical solution. Christianity had potential (and a champion in his wife) but needed its many factions kicking into shape. The Council of Nicaea was his solution.

"You think that by listing three words beginning with 'o' you can understand the nature of God and from that position accuse the Almighty of all manner of things."

These are the terms used by the Holy See and inculcated into generations of priests and laity. My understanding is based on a dozen years of Catholic Schooling and a fascination with christianity ever since. I don't accuse your Almighty of anything He hasn't inspired in His own Holy Book.

"Can the clay say to the potter: "What do you think you are doing?" "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9"

In other words don't question what you cannot understand. Classic Catholic doctrine of ignorance.

"A middle-class cave?"

Yes. Read up your social history of Palestine in the First Century before you criticise it. Such homes were remarkably common.

"It is not a major element in the story."

The appearance of angels, a star in the sky to mark his place of birth. the birth of the Messiah himself, and the three 'kings' - not a major element? Are you one of these resurrection-obsessed christians then?

"Would Pilate have reported the death of what appeared to be 'just a religious fanatic' in some backwater?"

Palestine was not a backwater. You don't post three entire legions in a backwater. It was the frontier of the empire. The only place it bordered another great empire and the end of the Silk Road. It was a major world crossroads. It also protected Egypt, Rome's breadbasket, from the Parthians.

At the time it was in turmoil as Jewish Zealots tried to overthrow the Herodian client Kingship. A single man who could offer unity to this turbulent region, a true Jewish Messiah was a dangerous thing. By having him nauiled up Pilate could report he'd handled the situation quickly and efficiently. A feather in his cap, so why didn't he?

"It was neither accurate or truthful of Caiaphas to sway Pilate's decision in this way at that brief moment in o try Jesus the narrative."

Did not Caiaphas and Annas have to beg Pilate to try Jesus? They needed Roman authority to eliminate this threat to the authority of the temple. Did not they apply the title of 'King of the Jews' to support their claim that Jesus was a threat to the Empire?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Trig

"Matholwch may not worship his gods in the same way that Christians worship their God, but he accords them respect in some form."

I do indeed. Respect is the word, and one that describes a healthy relationship.

"Math, am I right in thinking that to your mind the Christian God is in fact just another god who's got big ideas and is pretending to be more important than he actually is?"

I really couldn't tell you as I don't know. I have no problem who have a quiet and personal relationship with this deity. But I do take umbrage when certain members of that faith-group believe they have the right, indeed the duty, to try and run my life by their beliefs.

And remember, monotheists only preach tolerance when they are not in charge... for polytheists tolerance is a given.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

"Monotheists only preach tolerance when they are not in charge."

I'm failing to think of a counter-example. I yet maintain that monotheism is not inherantly intolerant. It may regard 'other ways' as mistaken, even grossly mistaken, but there is no actual need to opress people for getting things wrong. (Even if that is what has always happened. JWs, of course, refuse to take political office. This means that they never will be 'in charge'.)

"For polytheists tolerance is a given."

Again, this depends on the polytheists in question. Some polytheists believe, not in a vast number of spirits, but in a specific pantheon. It is perfectly possible for polytheists to disagree with each other, and perhaps to go to war over their disagreements. Hindus have fought other religious groups, haven't they?

(A Hindu theologian will tell you that Hinduism is not polytheistic: it has one God with many faces. Similarly, a Catholic theologian will tell you that Catholics don't worship idols. What actually happens on the ground is not always a good reflection of the theories.)

TRiG.

Matholwch

<<"em so do I take it (from posting 26461) that you're not quite ready for me to lead you in the sinner's prayer then?! ">>

This was meant as a joke...sorry for any offence caused.

<<"Still very recent for the time."

Not at all.>>

I'm led to believe the gospels are historically more detailed and reliable than for the existence of Julius Ceasar.

<>

Maybe they got converted. Maybe,(apart from Josephus) because they didn't believe, they thought it wasn't worth recording?

<>

Math, you can't convince me that its with an open mind that you've been studying...the tone of your postings informs me otherwise..all due respect.

<>

These accounts are eye-witness accounts, and that makes them compelling. They weren't written by particularly clever people or scholars...they just wrote down what they saw...that's why unbiased people, when studying them come to the conclusion that they are genuine and trustworthy. What did they have to gain? What did they have to lose...their lives; they must have felt compelled to write these things down.

<>

I consider myself a seeker after truth.

<>

You know more about Constantine than me so I'll have to take your word for it. But there were a lot of church leaders there seeking to settle the final canon of New Testament scripture...some of them surely must have had non-political motives! (I confess to being no scholar...I left school with 3 O-levels and haven't looked back since!)

<>

I have very little to do with Catholicism...I am opposed to much of their doctrine, practice and superstitions.

<>

On the contrary...my point is: be careful not to make life choices based on a massive misinterpretation.

<<"A middle-class cave?"

Yes. Read up your social history of Palestine in the First Century before you criticise it. Such homes were remarkably common.>>

Again here Math, NO CRITICISM, it was a joke, referring back to our previous postings. And yes, I agree that the stable thingy is not a reliable tradition of the sort of place in which Jesus was born.

<>

The details of the nativity are not major elements...hence, I suppose, not recorded in all gospels. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by a 'resurrection-obsessed christian'.

<>

Possible reason: it was THE crisis moment in his life to meet this amazing man, Jesus. His wife pleads with him to have nothing to do with him on account of a dream. He is driven to ask: "What is truth?" of Jesus in the course of that fateful conversation. He finally washes his hands (in an obsessive/compulsive way?) before condemning him. I don't think Pilate would ever have slept well after this experience, so perhaps the answer to your question is that he would probably have tried to banish all memory of that fateful night from his mind. You've got to admit...that's a possibility.

<>

Please could you remind me what point you are making here.


At some point, I'd love to hear about your religion, Math, or whatever you call it; not in any way to criticise...it just interests me.

O, and how do you pronounce your name...I'm ok up till about half way, then there seems to be what can only be described as a serious shortage of vowels.

Peace to you

mich2ael

<>

Who leads you to believe this?

<>

These accounts were written down long after the events they purport to describe, by a person or persons unknown, recounting a series of events of extreme unlikelihood that were never noticed by people who *were* writing at the time, and this is why they are not trustworthy.

<>

The one reference to Jesus in Josephus is a later interpolation. It wasn't written by Josephus.

Noggin

<<"(A Hindu theologian will tell you that Hinduism is not polytheistic: it has one God with many faces.">>

I think you will find this rather depends on which branch of Hinduism it is.

Hi Trig

"I'm failing to think of a counter-example."

Indeed

"I yet maintain that monotheism is not inherantly intolerant."

It has to be. Say you are an active monotheist. Your position is that there is but one God. I come along and say I revere many gods. My position challenges yours, yours does not challenge mine. It isn't long before I become a danger to the spread of your religion (which, if it is christianity, you are bound by scripture to spread).


"It may regard 'other ways' as mistaken, even grossly mistaken, but there is no actual need to opress people for getting things wrong."

True, there is no real need, but history shows that inevitably it has.

Jehovah's are a tiny exception to the great state-sponsored churches and the evangelical movements.

"Again, this depends on the polytheists in question. Some polytheists believe, not in a vast number of spirits, but in a specific pantheon. It is perfectly possible for polytheists to disagree with each other, and perhaps to go to war over their disagreements."

An example perchance?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Ragnorak, anyone?

<> (mich2ael to Matholwch)

I pronounce it Math.

az

Hi mich2ael

Don't keep worrying about upsetting me, I have a well-developed sense of humour ok?

"I'm led to believe the gospels are historically more detailed and reliable than for the existence of Julius Ceasar."

By whom? Beyond his own accounts of his wars and political career we have the accounts of various contemporaneous Roman writers that mention him, and not all of them liked him at all. We have coins struck with his image, busts, inscriptions all from the period of his life or just afterwards.

For your Jesus we have just four gospels none of which were written until well after his death. There are no 'eye-witness' accounts.

"Maybe they got converted."

Er...no. The early Church did not develop in Palestine, but in Asia Minor and Greece and latterly in Rome. Paul, Peter and their friends fled Palestine in the First Century.

"Math, you can't convince me that its with an open mind that you've been studying...the tone of your postings informs me otherwise..all due respect."

The tone of my post is based upon the evidence and lack of it.

<>

"These accounts are eye-witness accounts, and that makes them compelling."

As I said above they weren't. Even if Mathew was conteporaneous and most of the evidence says he wasn't, the other three definitely weren't. Mark relies on Mathew for most details. Luke is a bit of a hodge-podge and John was away with the faeries.

"They weren't written by particularly clever people or scholars...they just wrote down what they saw...that's why unbiased people, when studying them come to the conclusion that they are genuine and trustworthy."

People writing dow what they saw can be some of the most unreliable evidence there is. You only have to consider the conflicting eye witness statements often given by five people who observe a mugging only minutes after the event to unbderstand that.

"What did they have to gain? What did they have to lose...their lives; they must have felt compelled to write these things down."

In a religiously-tolerant place like the Roman Empire there were few religious persecutions. And don't bring up Nero, that was all sixth century Christian propaganda. If you are promoting a new cult and its working you have everyhting to gain.

"I have very little to do with Catholicism...I am opposed to much of their doctrine, practice and superstitions."

Snap

"On the contrary...my point is: be careful not to make life choices based on a massive misinterpretation."

I'm not the one misinterpretating the facts. You have based your beliefs on a set of writings that you cannot prove, in fact no-one has been able to prove for two millenia. Do you think that if anyone could prove their veracity they would not have done so by now, especially as Christians have a duty to spread the word.

"At some point, I'd love to hear about your religion, Math, or whatever you call it; not in any way to criticise...it just interests me."

I have written a guide entry upon it. I'm no good at links so just pick it up off my page ok?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi mich2ael

Sorry about not answering this one before:

"O, and how do you pronounce your name...I'm ok up till about half way, then there seems to be what can only be described as a serious shortage of vowels."

Math - as you'd expect,
ol - again as you might expect ,
wch - similar to 'yeeuch!' but without the 'y' and the '!'.

Don't they teach Welsh in your school or something?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hello Matholwch,

To help me answer your questions I've been doing some research into the reliability of the New Testament documents.


<>

To quote from F.F.Bruce in his book "The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?"...
"The New Testament was substantially complete about AD 100, the majority of writings being in existence 20 to 40 years before this. In this country a majority of scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100....the situation is encouraging from a historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when many were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did..."
"Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion ,and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing."
"...there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date...Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's 'Gallic War' (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day...The history of Thucydides (460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps belonging to the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of Herodotus (488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt...But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! There are in existence over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best of these go back to c. AD 350...In addition to these, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still..."

<>

Sorry Math, I was wrong there...the three synoptic Gospels were orally handed down to start with...John's is the most likely to be eye-witness, written down in his old age. Interestingly, Mark's Gospel, being the earliest, may be a source for some of Matthew's...the coincidental passages being treated more fully.
Another quote; from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, in which Papias tells of the origin of Mark's Gospel: "Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter (the Apostle) wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however in order. For he was neither a hearer or companion of the Lord; but afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them."
This Mark was in all probability the young boy who had such a narrow escape when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51f) and may well have drawn on his own experience at that point in his narrative.

<>

Not so! The book of Acts records instances of threats, imprisonments, flogging, stoning and beheading of these believers.

<>

I refer you to my points above regarding authenticity of New Testament documents. And, to answer a similar point of yours that archeology turned up no shred of evidence to support biblical text, I refer you to the highly informative book, "A Test of Time, The Bible - from Myth to History" by David Rohl published by Century in 1995, following on from the TV series on Channel 4.

<>

A very large number of people have accepted the veracity of the message in these two thousand years. However, since the 'age of enlightenment' and the subsequent 'search for the historical Jesus', there have been many rational thinkers who require more intelligent debate in order to be convinced on this issue.

<>

Thanks, I'll check it out.

mich2ael

G'Day ti ye Pink Salmon, if'n ya'll divvant believe in God why wid yuz believe in that pillock as lives doon in Hell.

Y'nah theers' nae God so why wud ye believe in Satan.

I believe in Fairies cos they can be seen ivvery day mincin' the chuffin' streets. Nawotahmeen? :0)

Why argue amongst ourselves about something that is a myth?

The only myth I would argue about lives about three doors away from where I live.

She wears short skirts an' nylons that reach up to her armpits an'
Well yu naw wot ah meen !!!

Hi mich2ael

Good to see you doing some research - well done! The history of the eraly church is fascinating, though you need to widen your sources a bit to get different views of the same set of facts.

We could banter about the Gospels for another 26,000 posts and I am sure Alji and Noggin would join in as they are entertaining pedants like me as well. So let us change tack shall we?

Imagine you are the head of the largest church in the world. You have at your disposal either the original or a copy of every known document that has been discovered regarding christianity in two millenia.

If there is proof that the gospels are accurate or that there is historical evidence for Jesus then you have it. Releasing any of this would have the agnostics flocking to your door. You have a direct command from Jesus to do this.

Instead you watch the erosion of faith and the loss of hundreds of millions of the faithful either to atheism, or worse to the heresy of protestantism.

Why do you not act?

The standard response of Jesuits and Opus Dei to this charge is that to be chosen one must have faith - blind faith with no need for proof. This is a crock and one they have only been selling since Vatican Council I.

The only rational answer is that they don't have it. No matter the intellectual gymnastics that christian theologians go through there is no proof.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hmmm... Math, I assume you are winding me up by bringing Opus Dei into this. About 200 posts ago you and I were disputing the same subject matter you are now debating with Mich2ael (welcome, by the way). See F55607?thread=192835&post=47629100#p47629100 et seq over several postings.

<>

The demand for faith is already there in the Gospels and other New Testament writings, where there are dozens of references, e.g. "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?", or "He could work few miracles there, because of their lack of faith", and in the various other letters and New Testament writings. Many onlookers refused to believe in Jesus even in the Gospel narratives, as many also do nowadays. But this faith or "believing in" Jesus is a different question from that of Jesus' historicity, for which there is plenty of evidence.