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

dont understend most of conversations on this site, maybe im getin old....but are you all jesus freaks??? up 2 u wot u believe in but its all getin a bit 'heavy' 4 me

Hi warrioremma70

You can call me a Jesus freak if you like.

It has got quite heavy recently. I believe the conversation was originally concerned with either proving or disproving the existence of God, though recently there's been a few different conversations running in tandem between a few pagans, a druid, an atheist, an agnostic or two and a couple of christians (from differing christian traditions I think). It could make an amusing sit-com!

I'm on the side of people who try to prove the existence of God, but have come to the conclusion that when all the evidence has been weighed up, you still have to take a step of faith to believe in God's existence.

Bye for now

mikey2

Talking about different conversations going on at once...I was in a chemist buying contraceptives once; I was quite young at the time and feeling quite embarrassed as I explained as quietly as possible to the assistant what I thought I needed. At that moment the other assistant called from my left to someone on my right: 'Have you tried gaviscon?' I started to explain that I hadn't heard of it before realizing she was talking to someone else!!

mikey2

Hi mikey2 ,

I think you need to lighten up a bit and not take my comments so personally. This is a debating forum, a safe place to bandy arguments. tighten up your rhetoric and enjoy yourself intellectually. If you feel I'm getting a bit too close to your comfort level I will back off. I save the acid for those who really ask for it...

"You can be infuriating at times. "

I'm afraid so. I try not to be offensive, but I will push things right up to the border on occasion.

"'Dogma'? Merely speaking up for a point of view which has been much sidelined in our society. 'Proselytizing'? I set out to defend a point of view, not to proselytize."

This may be my fault, I often mix general statements in with the main line of argument. Speaking egenrally I was talking about the unquestioned Christian (with a big 'C') dogma, and it is the duty of all Christians to proselytize. So if people start to come over a bit preachy I will push back.

"To be fair Math, you started it. Considering the subject matter you introduced, I had no option. Anyway, I wasn't trying to frighten you: 'The pleasantness of one's friend springs from his earnest counsel.'"

Nice quote, just copying that into my quote folder... done. You may not have been meaning to firghten me but consider it from my point of view. You were saying that I was quite possibly a victim of your devil. That my beliefs and religion were all just a sham createed by your devil to make you poor Christians uncomfortable.

"I considered posting here a nice comment about how honest christians may often struggle with doubts from time to time...maybe not! "

Anyone with half a brain has doubts. I constantly have doubts. Doubt is useful for it undermines arrogance and makes you think and research.

<>

"That's deep. In a very real sense the devil's days are numbered thanks to the Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

Deep it may be, but unanswered it remains. Not one Christian we have ever had here in 26,000 posts has been willing to answer that one. Why does God allow the Devil to exist? Which then leads to why God needs a tempter...? Any takers on that thorny theological questions guys?

"No begging necessary, just believe the good news and call on the name of the Lord."

And I'm more than likely damned anyway as my name will have been chosen, or not, before the foundation of the world.

"You know your bible, Math."

Not as well as you should. Andrew knows his Bible and is a constant light to us all.

"Math, though I've really come to.......em.......tolerate you a lot over these few weeks.........I wonder whether we ought to have a trial separation!! Seriously though, I like you but we're never going to agree on anything, so lets call it a day? We can even say you won if you like."

Tolerate me? You should never tolerate me. You should get up and give me a good whuppin'!

I have no interest in winning, this is not a game. This is a method of enquiry and peer review of theories and beliefs. Look at it like that and you will begin to understand the druid position on life and belief.

Yr gwir yn erbyn y byd!

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Why does the Devil exist?

Hmm.

Try reading F78440?thread=2711424 (esp. post 14) and see if it gets you anywhere.

TRiG.

Hi Trig ,

Thanks for that. I'll look up your biblical references.

Christians need to be careful though with the 'Satan Rules This World' idea. It is this theory that led, in part, to the Albigensian Crusade and the annihilation of the Cathars.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Math. This is a generic reply to an issue which arose in the recent backlog. As usual, I want to introduce a philosophical consideration to the mileu.

My point concerns the concept of *rationality*, which is made to do a lot of work by many on this thread. It is my contention that, far from being justifiable as a 'kind' of anything - it is not even definable.

Contrast 'inductive' and 'deductive' reasoning which *are* definable, but impossible to justify without circularity or psychologism. Can anyone propose a definition of 'rational' (necessary and sufficient conditions, perhaps) which actually stand up to analysis. I don't want examples (eg: astronomy vs astrology) as we end up saying that a rational being will find astrology irrational. This is little different from saying that rationality is that which a perfectly rational being would concur with.

Anyone care to have a bash at this, or maybe let me know if this idea has been publicised before? Am I reinventing the wheel?

J

Hi Matholwch

<>

No I didn't say that about your beliefs etc, I brought up the subject of the devil because you told me of a pact you made to burn in hell for eternity. If you're going to do that sort of thing I'm going to give you helpful advice!

<>

There may not be an answer, Math. If the bible doesn't clearly state the answer then one can only surmise.

I think you have a tendency to try to understand God in human terms...i.e.you are projecting human characteristcs onto a being who is infinite. There is a lot of stuff about God and the spiritual realm that we can't understand. But there is plenty he has made known to us.
Why should God need a devil on whom to cast blame for bad stuff? I think I might be correct in saying that he doesn't need one. He doesn't need to explain away bad stuff to you, me, or anyone.
The devil was a very real personality in the gospels. Exorcism of demons was a regular activity of the One who came to set the captives free. An understanding of the God of the bible has to take Jesus' mission into consideration...He came as a light into the darkness to destroy the works of the evil one. The bible makes the fact of the devil's existence quite clear. Not a popular idea I know.

<>

'Seek and you will find', Jesus said. If you're determined to seek and find God, you will. If you are determined to ask ambiguous questions, you may be missing out.

<>

Get predestination out of your head, Math. Why are you so attached to this doctrine? I've told you there's another side to the coin.

<>

I think you need to lighten up a bit and not take my comments so seriously.

<>

And there's no need for that kind of language.

mikey2

Hi jbird

That's a doozey of a topic. I'm going to give that some thought before I pen a reply OK?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi mikey2,

"No I didn't say that about your beliefs etc, I brought up the subject of the devil because you told me of a pact you made to burn in hell for eternity. If you're going to do that sort of thing I'm going to give you helpful advice!"

Aha... the pact was based upon the likelihood that we would probably be damned whatever we did, and none of us could stomach bending our knee to a God who would damn babies to such a fate. There again He's killed millions of children before, so it matters little to Him.

"There may not be an answer, Math. If the bible doesn't clearly state the answer then one can only surmise."

But surely it is a question that goes right to the heart of whether He is a God worth the adoration He demands?

"I think you have a tendency to try to understand God in human terms...i.e.you are projecting human characteristcs onto a being who is infinite."

As I am made in His image, and thus an admittedly pale reflection of Him, I don't think it unreasonable to appoint to him human characteristics do you?

"Why should God need a devil on whom to cast blame for bad stuff? I think I might be correct in saying that he doesn't need one. He doesn't need to explain away bad stuff to you, me, or anyone. "

But he does, and it is listed chapter and verse in His inspired book. The poor old devil cops it for just about every rotten thing from original sin to final temptation. He even instructs the devil to make Job's life a living hell just to demonstrate what an upright guy Job really is. Pity about his wife and family n'all...

"The devil was a very real personality in the gospels. Exorcism of demons was a regular activity of the One who came to set the captives free."

Unfortunately exorcisms are still a very real part of the modern Christian world, and they lead to all sorts of really unpleasant abuse in His name. The belief in possession is complete folly and the methods used to exorcise the imagined possession are criminal.

"An understanding of the God of the bible has to take Jesus' mission into consideration...He came as a light into the darkness to destroy the works of the evil one. The bible makes the fact of the devil's existence quite clear. Not a popular idea I know."

Indeed, but I am glad I have met a Christian with the courage to say so - bravo!

<>

"If you are determined to ask ambiguous questions, you may be missing out."

Ambiguous huh? How about - why God did you invent sin and set it upon your chosen people? Why must babies be thrown in the lake of fire? Clear enough?

"Get predestination out of your head, Math. Why are you so attached to this doctrine? I've told you there's another side to the coin."

There is, but I find the whole predestination thing interesting, especially as it is a cornerstone of a number of large and powerful protestant sects.

"I think you need to lighten up a bit and not take my comments so seriously. "

I don't, but I enjoy active enquiry. An incurious man is a dead man.

<>

"And there's no need for that kind of language."

So what is wrong with Welsh? If you haven't googled it, it means "The truth against the world".

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Math

Jesus' words give me encouragement to believe that there will be no infants burning in hell. 'Let the little children come to me for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.''Things that cause one of these little ones to sin are bound to come, but woe to the one through whom they come.''Their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father in heaven'

<>

No not entirely unreasonable, as long as you bear in mind his holiness and separateness from us. You've taken certain Old Testament events, mixed in a few random doctrines, sprinkled liberally with predestination, assumed that God is no different from you or me, and passed judgement. But he is beyond our understanding.

<>

The last few words you use here illustrate my previous point: 'just to demonstrate what an upright guy Job really is!' That's projecting an inappropriate human characteristic onto God.

<>

It is an area vulnerable to abuse, extremes and excesses, but in spite of that, a valid and necessary ministry. Indeed conflict with the devil is more appropriate than endless discussion and speculation about his existence or where he might have come from. However, I can well understand the very real concerns of those without faith in God, or who dismiss the notion that there even is a devil.

<>

<>

Where do you get these ideas from, Math? If they're valid I'd like to know.

The following verse is not to wind you up. I'm just pinning my colours to the mast. This is the God I love and worship.

'The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbour his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavems are above the earth. so great is his love for those who fear him.' Psalm 103:8-11

kind regards,

mikey2

Hi mikey2,

"Jesus' words give me encouragement to believe that there will be no infants burning in hell. 'Let the little children come to me for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.''Things that cause one of these little ones to sin are bound to come, but woe to the one through whom they come.''Their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father in heaven'"

Your God's own history shows that he has no respect for childhood. Remember the Amakelites and Midianites? What happened to the innocent children and babes-in-arms of the world when your God supposedly flooded it in his great genocide? The reason we postulate that babies will be burned is that they cannot understand the offer your God makes and thus cannot accept it. Also it is highly likely that many of them will not have had their names written in the Book of Life before the world was begun.

"The last few words you use here illustrate my previous point: 'just to demonstrate what an upright guy Job really is!' That's projecting an inappropriate human characteristic onto God."

Erm.. I took this from the speech God made to the devil about Job:

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

It is an area vulnerable to abuse, extremes and excesses, but in spite of that, a valid and necessary ministry.

So you believe putting children through the psychological horrors of even a controlled Catholic exorcism is OK? I suggest you research what exorcism is and the effects it can have on a child's mind.

"Indeed conflict with the devil is more appropriate than endless discussion and speculation about his existence or where he might have come from."

You would do battle with your God's most loyal servant? I think that discussion about his existence is valid as the devil is often used by Christians to characterise the activities of otherwise innocent people that those Christians do not like. For instance I have been told many times that I worship the devil and am thus evil because I am a druid.

"However, I can well understand the very real concerns of those without faith in God, or who dismiss the notion that there even is a devil."

Perhaps because there is no evidence that he does exist? I think it is about time that Christianity stood up before the court and said "We are responsible for our own crimes and misdemeanours, we were not tempted or tricked into doing it by the devil".

<>

<>

"Where do you get these ideas from, Math? If they're valid I'd like to know."

The Bible. Adam and Eve were, in their primal naievity, led astray by God's servant, and God cursed all mankind to sin for all time. We've been through the baby bit above.

"The following verse is not to wind you up."

Don't worry about winding me up

'The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbour his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth. so great is his love for those who fear him.' Psalm 103:8-11

Very nice, except that the rest of the Bible shows this to be false. Oh and note the requirement for fear again in the last phrase

Math,

<>

'Things that cause one of these little ones to sin must come but woe to the one through whom they come'

The Job issue...touche.

<>

I have never seen one of these. It sounds like psychological abuse. There have been indefensible errors made in this area but demon possession happens. The spirit world is very real. People in African countries where witch doctors still operate can testify to that.

<>

servant?? Your bible knowledge appears to be decidedly shakey in this area!!

<>

I respect the point you're making here. I cannot defend all that's gone on in the name of christianity. But I can believe in the God who has been hideously misrepresented by his supposed followers and say, hey, if you look at Jesus and all he taught us there's something and someone wonderful here that people need to hear about. I can't imagine what it would take to persuade you to move on from the past, Math. Nothing short of a miracle I think you'll agree.

'Give thanks to the Lord for his love endures forever'

mikey2

Hi mikey2

<>

"I have never seen one of these. It sounds like psychological abuse. There have been indefensible errors made in this area but demon possession happens. The spirit world is very real. People in African countries where witch doctors still operate can testify to that."

How do you know that demonic possession happens? Have you had personal experience of it? I think you need to bring some evidence to the table on this one or you are just joining the ignorant throng who leap to superstition when there can be perfectly rational explanations available.

"But I can believe in the God who has been hideously misrepresented by his supposed followers and say, hey, if you look at Jesus and all he taught us there's something and someone wonderful here that people need to hear about. "

You will note that throughout our conversation I have not gone for interpretations, but to the book itself, supposedly inspired by God. This is not misrepresentation, this is His words.

I have looked at Jesus and shown how he supports the recorded acts of his Father (how can he not as the two are the same?) and wishes you to continue to live under God's OT laws.

The wonderful news you speak of is this:
1. I have infected you with sin as a punishment for Adam's sin of primal naievity.
2. I have chosen who will be saved and who will be thus damned before the world was ever formed.
3. I have shown by example that I am one serious guy by destroying the world once before.
4. You must renounce the sin I gave you and turn away from the devil I have allowed to tempt and make you suffer, and accept my mercy.
5. As long as you show that you fear me, and you are one of those I chose before the world began, you'll be alright.
6. For the rest of you - tough!

"I can't imagine what it would take to persuade you to move on from the past, Math. Nothing short of a miracle I think you'll agree. "

What I cannot understand is how, in full knowledge of the nature of this God, you still wish to worship him?

Either you have no conscience (not a requirement for salvation by the way) or you are so full of fear about the alternative (the lake of fire) as to be willing to bend your knee to a genocidal lunatic.

The gods I work with and revere do not require obeisance nor adoration, nor that I sacrifice my conscience, nor indeed do they require that I fear them. They accept when I do not understand what they would show me. They let me make my own mistakes, but do not turn away when I return bloodied by my foolishness. They do not curse me nor condemn me.

These are gods of wisdom and compassion, not vengeful dictators. This is why you can keep your salvation and I will quietly walk my own path until we one day find out which of us was right.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Cheers Math. It seems to me that appeals to 'rationality', or the lack of it, in this thread are so frequent that at least some of its users owe us an account of what they mean by it. You are among those subjected to 'attacks' in such terms. Are the users of the term simply trying to find a sexier way of saying "It doesn't make sense to me" or "I don't sympathise with this or that belief"?

If this is so, let us insist on further analysis than this kind of thinly disguised 'name-calling'. Or maybe someone can offer a decent analysis. Surely it has something to do with lack of self-contradiction, coherent belief-sets or the ways in which beliefs can be securely justified.

J

Andrew and Mich2ael

I am still waiting for /any/ archaeological evidence to back up your assertions that the baby-burning mentioned as justification in the OT for the destruction of an entire race (including the babies) is more than biblical propaganda.

The Cathars were also accused of eating the ashes of burnt babies, by the way. It is, as I say, a standard thing in demonising your enemies, resorted to by, among others, the Christians about the Jews, other Christians of different sects, any pagans they didn't like and thought they might conquer with enough home support, and, to be fair, the Romans about the Cathagians. All the allegations made in recorded history were false, and have been shown to be false by modern historians.

Otherwise, why not - just for once - admit the possibility that there are things in the bible which just might be not entirely the whole truth...

--

Jez

Hi Jez

<>

You'll have to wait sometime...I'm not an archeologist and I work approximately 70 hours a week, so not much time for digging or reading. If you look back at the original posting (26574) there was not a lot of 'justifying' going on, and in fact, these things were mentioned in passing as I was saying that the events did not portray God as a nice guy!

Sorry that I can't do any better than that.

Hope you are well

mikey2

Math

Google for a book entitled 'From Witchcraft to Christ' by Doreen Irvine, its one woman's testimony that may shed some light for you.

I won't be around for a while, Math. Life's very busy right now and I owe it to you to weigh carefully what you say and how to respond. I hope to be back in a week or so. Hope that's ok with you.

All the best, mate.

mikey2

Hi mikey2

Ah the infamous Doreen Irvine. A girl who came from a 'bad home' and became a sex worker and stripper, then found Christ.

Her sensationalised account of her then short life was ghost written by a tabloid hack who used every trick in the book to make it even more 'saleable'. In the version published she claimed to have been recruited by Satanists and later became the chief 'black' witch in Britain.

It came out around the same time as the various witchhunts being carried out by Social Services against 'satanic child abuse' and was initially quoted as evidence of the existence of the practice. As Doreen could provide no evidence whatsoever to support her claims the book was not used by the various investigations.

Indeed many of the 'rituals' she described had been paraphrased wholesale from the fiction of Dennis Wheatley. Rituals he admitted thath he had invented himself.

The book got some coverage in the gutter press until some of the people she alluded to threatened to sue for libel, and then the press immediately dropped it (they knew it was mostly bull and that they would be taken to the cleaners).

However, it has remained a favourite in evangelical Christian circles where is it used to attempt to steer young girls of the Buffy and Charmed generation from the perils of witchcraft.

The 'tradition' it really inaccurately describes is Christian Satanism. This is the rather silly worship of the Satan from the Bible. It is believed that there may be as many as a dozen of these nutjobs wandering our streets at this time, not the thousands she claimed.

There are substantially more Anton Levey Satanists around, maye a hundred or so. These have no connection to christianity as they work with a Roman God of light called Lucifer. Suppressed but never destroyed by the Christianized Roman Empire, it is where christians got the name Lucifer from and used it to conflate their devil and these quite peaceable people with (we can't have two gods of light and peace wandering around now can we? People might get confused).

I have experienced witchcraft in Britain in three general forms (and this is where my witchy friends are welcome to jump in and correct my misconceptions).

The first, and best organised, is that practiced by Wiccans. A specific faith devised by Gerald Gardner and his friends in the post-WW2 period. It is an organised faith that works with 'The Goddess' amongst other gods and spirits. It has absolutely no relationship to christianity whatsoever. Wiccans form a large part of the Pagan Federation and are recognised by the authorities as a legitimate faith.

The second are family tradition witches. Rarer than wiccans these come from families who continued to work work with their ancient, pre-christian, gods all through the centuries of dominance by christianity. There is a sister grouping of this type of witch in Italy called Strega.

Family tradition witches tend to be very closed mouthed about their practices and beliefs, following a custom that kept them alive for fifteen hundred years.

The last grouping I have encountered are what are best described as 'hedge-witches'. Usually women, these are people from often rural communities who have inheritied or assumed the position of wise women in their communities. Many are skilled herbalists, all have a close relationship to the land and communities they serve.

You can add to this the thousands of fashion-victim witches. Girls usually, who think that by reading a Teen-Witch book they can acquire the abilities of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Willow (from Buffy) or the Charmed Women. Most grow out of it after a year or two of continuous disappointment.

There are a few other types, such as heathen witches etc. But I'll let them speak for themselves

The key things to understand about modern witchcraft are this:
1. It is non christian, it doesn't even recognise Christ, or your God or His devil.
2. It is based, for the most part, on the ancient, pre-Christian deities of this land (and a few others if you take some of the Wiccans into account - they just love Egyptian and Greek mythology).
3. Nearly all witches adhere to what is called the Rede. It is a longish poem but finishes with that famous phrase "an it harm none, do what thou will (or wilt)". These are people dedicated to peace.
4. Pretty much every witch I have encountered (and that is quite a few I can tell you) uses what she considers to be his/her abilities for the common good. Many are also healers or herbalists, some are seers or diviners and others just believers in forces more ancient than your God.

When you read what can only be described as 'trash-fiction' such as Doreen's story, it may be worth actually doing some independent research into what she talks about. Ignorance is the cause of most hatred and from hatred come such acts as we have seen most recently in the Balkans.

I will await your return with the infamous commandment about witches from the Bible...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Jez

<>

You'll have to wait sometime...I'm not an archeologist and I work approximately 70 hours a week, so not much time for digging or reading. If you look back at the original posting (26574) there was not a lot of 'justifying' going on, and in fact, these things were mentioned in passing as I was saying that the events did not portray God as a nice guy!

Sorry that I can't do any better than that.

Hope you are well




You can do better. You can say, without prejudice to the subsequent finding of independent evidence, that there is a /possibility/ that this charge, like all the others in better-documented times, may be a piece of propaganda rather than literal truth.

As was the Christian charge against the Cathars, the pagans in parts of the Old and New World, the Jews in medieval times and the Romans against the Carthaginians. All propaganda, all later proven false.

Your church, and its predecessors in the bible, have one of the worst records of any political grouping for using false accusations against its enemies, and even against its variants.

--

Jez