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

Hi Della

I have just reread your posting and feel strangely moved to have another go at answering it.

"For starters, if you were any kind of a friend, you wouldn't call me Della."

Yeah right, sort of reminds you of when death threats were being thrown across h2g2 doesn't it? Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable...

Methinks Az has been a better friend to you than practically anyone else from that period. I'd cut her some of the slack she has so generously given ytou these last few years.

Besides Az has a far better reputation as a steadfast friend to practically all the regulars here than you have ever had, and I for one will not have her good name tarnished.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Aw shucks, Math.

It probably won't come as any surprise to know that I didn't say what Della says I did, though it sounds like she interpreted it that way.

I'm not as involved here as I used to be so I don't let people get to me like I sometimes did before. I personally think that's a good thing. I don't think that walking away and ignoring someone when they start being unreasonable means you're manipulating them - it simply means that there are limits. I just got tired of having the same old arguments and also having the same old accusations hurled at me.

Likewise I'm not as upset as I would have been awhile back about Blather's piece being removed. He can always post it elsewhere. It really seems like h2g2 is drifting further and further from what Douglas Adams first envisioned, but I guess that was inevitable once the BBC took it over.

az

<>

The Christian box does contain us all, yes. But you must recognise the differences! JtP would be very unhappy at being lumped in with us. I believe there are fewer differences between Andrew and me, than between JtP and either of us. As a Protestant, I suppose I *should* be there with JtP, but that's not the case at all, I am with Andrew!

As for being on the atheist's side of the argument, that's yer choice, but I don't see why!

Vicky
PS - no, I can see that you don't get it. That name offends me very much indeed, which is why some people (such as az) make a point of using it. That's because SorB and Blicky turned that name into a term of abuse, the equivalent for some on h2g2, including many noobs who wen't even here a year ago, to the name of Hitler!

So, I don't care what the rationalisation is, not I don't accept use of that name as a "friendly" act, no way!

Vicky

This post has been removed.

Hi Della,

"The Christian box does contain us all, yes. But you must recognise the differences! JtP would be very unhappy at being lumped in with us."

Not my problem - you are all self-declared Christians, whatever doctrinal differences you may have between you.

"I believe there are fewer differences between Andrew and me, than between JtP and either of us."

I think that you will find that Andrew has little truck with reincarnation, or a number of your other beliefs. The Mother Church does not consider protestants to actually be Christians in the strict sense of the word.

"As for being on the atheist's side of the argument, that's yer choice, but I don't see why! "

Perhaps because I actually believe in and support science against such onslaughts as the Creationist lobby?

"PS - no, I can see that you don't get it. That name offends me very much indeed, which is why some people (such as az) make a point of using it."

I doubt it. I use the name you chose all that time ago because though you may change your spots, the leopard stays the same. I have no intention to offend but it is not me who is uncomfortable with the name. Della you are and Della thou shalt remain.

"So, I don't care what the rationalisation is, not I don't accept use of that name as a "friendly" act, no way! "

Fair enough.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<>
Neither do I, anymore...
<< The Mother Church does not consider protestants to actually be Christians in the strict sense of the word.>>
You'll have to ask Andrew about that...

<>

AFAIK, JtP is the Creationist, and Andrew and I are not, so that's that!

<>

Doubt away! The fact is, calling me Della is an act of spite, and has nothing to do with anything I've done at any time ever. I hate the name, because it was used throughout the Della wars (named by those who began them - clue, wasn't me!)
Of course it's your intention to offend! Be a man and admit it.

Hi Della ,

I have no interest in offending anyone, so it is your perception of the use of the name 'Della' which causes you offence, not my actual use of it.

It is the same as saying that because I have publically declared myself to be apostate I offend God, and if I offend God then I offend you. Your perceptions of offence are not caused by me.

So you have dropped reincarnation now huh? Any other major doctrinal shifts I should be aware of in your rather fluid approach to christianity?

As for being Creationist I think that you will find that Catholic doctrine still includes Genesis as literal truth (Andrew may be able to help me here). It is the Anglicans who have gone all allegorical.

Btw, who ever said I was a man?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<>
Ah yes... those were the days! I was very happy that Vicky described me as a 'liberal Catholic' - I would like to think so, but it's not true that I am a liberal by most peoples' standards, alas.

On the other hand (to take your more recent points), 1) Protestants are most definitely Christians and 2) I do not take Genesis as literal history and while Catholics certainly can do so if they want, there is no obligation.
The main teachings of those first chapters of the Book of Genesis are that God created everything, that he created mankind especially, and that mankind suffered some kind of moral failure at the beginning. There is much more detail within these points (and more points as well), but that's the sort of thing that a non-literal interpretation would make of the opening words of the Bible.

Hi Andrew ,

Good to hear from you:

"Ah yes... those were the days! I was very happy that Vicky described me as a 'liberal Catholic' - I would like to think so, but it's not true that I am a liberal by most peoples' standards, alas."

Too true. Recently my younger daughter has begun attending Mass on Sunday mornings so I have been accompanying her to give her moral support. It is amazing how fast the responses and creed came back to me.

"On the other hand (to take your more recent points), 1) Protestants are most definitely Christians and 2) I do not take Genesis as literal history and while Catholics certainly can do so if they want, there is no obligation."

I stand corrected - as always.

"The main teachings of those first chapters of the Book of Genesis are that God created everything, that he created mankind especially, and that mankind suffered some kind of moral failure at the beginning. There is much more detail within these points (and more points as well), but that's the sort of thing that a non-literal interpretation would make of the opening words of the Bible."

Oh you woolly liberal you!

Blessings,
Matholwch .

catholic opinion, as put down by Ratzinger about 6 or 7 yrs ago I seem to recall, was that non-catholic christians are christians, but that their church, their religion and thus their communion with God is flawed and imperfect. Only the catholic church has the perfect faith/religion/communion. I seem to recall he may have termed them as not 'proper' churches because they deny certain parts of the catholic doctrine.

Fine Andrew S, you say its metaphorical or allegorical and I certainly cant see genesis as literal, but for me and others that goes for every other bit of the bible too.

Isnt every reference to God a metaphor for our dreams, hopes and desires. Arent we attempting to create something impervious to change out of our ever chaning ideas? Something we can put our trust in when all that we can comprehend from within our tiny minds is that our own thoughts are falliable and prone to changing with the wind. Why does God instruct people who and how to rape and/or enslave people *after* he demanded that Pharo set HIs people free, then later still tell us that all people are his children and equal?

Maybe the reason that God Himself goes through changes, in one book instructing his chosen people to slaughter one bunch in another book saying how we should love our neighbours has something to do with our evolution of ideas and revolutions in thought. In one book commanding us to honour our parents then later demanding that we turn our back on them.

The big problem I have is that we expect perfection when we see nothing perfect. Not even the literary illusion that is God, although the word is thrown about a lot, appears to be perfect within the bible. The book or rahter books have errors too numerous to mention here, but some of the most basic like assigning bats as birds or hares as cud chewing animals would suggest if not prove that there was no omniscient outsdie agent providing the information for the bible.

The small and hugely significant errors and contradictions in the bible mean that it is not a useful or realiable cource for information even before you have to start wondering about which bits are literally true and which bits require interpretation.

In short if the whole seven days, created as is earth the universe and everything bit aitn true why should we be anymore credulous regarding the idea that God created it *at all*.

one love

Are there any parts of the bible that all the Christians on this thread actually agree that they all believe?

--

BTW, this is NOT a wind up, I really can't work it out.

--

Jez

--

PS - You probably not get quick responses but that's because I am away and only getting sporadic internet access

Hi Blicky

To get a handle on current doctrine from the Catholic Church you may wish to google for this document:

"Note_on_Some_Aspects_of_Evangelisation_14122007".

This has been recently published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition, as was, for the less discerning).

In it, all the softening of the Church's stance on other faiths, that we have seen in the latter years of the last Pope is thrown out of the window.

It seems Pope Benedict is determined to restore the Mother Church to its former hard line position. So, despite Andrew's statement about protestants also being christians, they may wish to start looking over their shoulders...

We sure live in interesting times.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Thank you Blicky, some interesting comments there. I agree that when we speak about God there is also a reference to our dreams, hopes and desires. Where we part company is that I believe that our hopes (etc) are a reflection of something real, placed there (so to speak) by God.

There is also the point you make about God changing. I think it is more a case of the two different covenants. It is interesting that Christians have sometimes been challenged here not for what Jesus says or for specifically Christian teachings, but for something or other that God commanded in the old Testament. But they are different covenants. The new covenant needed to be prepared by the old.

Most of the books in the Old Testament are clearly historical (I mean in genre - let's not get into reliability at this point) or prophetical or poetic. There are some books and passages that look like history from their form, but are generally accounted as stories with a moral, e.g. Jonah (he of the whale). The first chapters of Genesis are a bit like that, i.e. it is not unique. The New Testament is much simpler: the genre is either historical or literary (letters), with the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse).

On cud chewing animals, in translating an ancient language, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Rabbits and hares are not 'ruminants'. However, they do chew the cud in a rather unique way - take a look at the references. Here is one: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp

I don't know about you, but in my opinion that sort of result does not show the Bible is unreliable - perhaps even the reverse. If you expect modern science, e.g. a reliable listing of ruminants, a concept defined many centuries afterwards, of course the Bible is not the place to look.

<> Andrew S

Andrew, what's your take on evolution then? It's quite clear to all but the religious that mankind was *not* created at all, but evolved by means of a random process.

<>

I am not Andrew, but I am a Christian, and my view on this is that God used evolution as a means, knowing what would result, (perhaps giving a nudge here and there, no one knows.)

Adam, Eve, the apple are all allegorical. They point to a truth, although *exactly* what happened, we have no way of knowing. It's clear from the world we live in, that has war, paedophilia, serial killers, dictatorships, theft, pillage and the like, that *something* happened!

Vicky

To me, Andrew, that is the most horrid deceit of the Abrahamic religions. "The Fall".

First every man, woman and snake have been punished for something that the devil is allegedly responsible for and a perfect God did little to avoid.

"the fall" must have been part of a plan, why stack the deck in the way it was with the tree of knowlegde in the centre of the garden and then omnipresently watch as the devil did his stuff. Bizarre.

What is more bizarre is that people at one time believed it word for word and then later tried to pass it off as allegory.

Where is the supporting evidence in the real world for the garden myth being true in any sense?

Most animals have periods, lots of snakes swim in water and obviously dont eat dust. Unless you are going to stretch dust to take in "ashes to ashes"...etc...so that then dust can be quated with flesh. As with your justification regarding the rabbits and hares it has the whiff of furious back peddling or a desperate attempt to patch up a ship which keep springing holes.


We see perfection where in the universe? Yet we chide ourselves for not living up to a moral code of questionable origin and if we take the bible seriously for a second a moral code which is changeable. Murder is condemned then later urged only later to be renounced.


I wont go any futher as Im trying not to say anything that we will bring out the "mysterious ways" defencive manouver.

Hi Pedro. Vicky said more or less what I would have done. Evolution is not necessarily a problem for Christians. Historically Catholics have not had the same hang-ups as some other Christians have had in the Anglo-Saxon world, e.g. fundamentalists (I don't use the term pejoratively). This has something to do with the different respective approaches to the bible. In my book Evolution is just a means of creation, and what we see as randomness is the result of Providence.

The bible was not dictated word for word by God. It has a dual authorship - in the teaching of the Catholic Church, that is, which I profess. The bible was written by people inspired by God. These people saw events with the mentality of the time - hence the earth supported by pillars - but what they wrote is none the less a historical record. The Holy Spirit guarantees the religious integrity of the message, in this case that everything was made by God.

Hmph... this reads like a homily. Sorry about that.

We simul-posted. On the nature of Genesis, see the answer I made to Pedro above. Also, the account of the Fall is allegorical, so to get into the some of the details misses the point. Christians do believe though that there was a sin right at the beginning, that mankind (Adam and Eve) rejected God's authority, and that it was completely their fault. I think Genesis makes that aspect of culpability clear, actually.

<>

I am surprised you think that. The example you cited looked weak to me, and it doesn't look any stronger on a second viewing. My immediate thought is that now you are trying to justify a weak example that met an unexpected refutation by going on the attack! But I guess that is unfair: we just have a different take on things.

Murder is urged at one point in the old testament. In this case there was a tribe that was a deadly threat to the Israelites, and it was destroyed. But what is the point of criticising Christianity from the old testament? God chose his own people before much later expanding that choice to everyone, and the two covenants are different. Lots of the Old Law was abrogated or changed.

The point is that the Christian moral code comes from Jesus, and can be found in the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. If you want to find something questionable or temporary about the Christian moral code, I would say look there, not at an obvious exception that occurred many centuries before Jesus.

So on the one hand we *should'nt* get bogged down in detail but *should* accept the thrust of Genesis and the detail that mankind is culpable for their situation despite the same book saying it was the devil witch deliberately tempted Eve? If it was all Adam and Eve though why was the serpent punished for what the devil had done? Why punish all of humanity?

Im not going on the *attack* about the hares its just, as you say, the way I see things. However to be fair I do get more than a little short of patience proabably to do with debating with Christians of differening convictions and levels of adherence to "the word". I'll try to stay focused on what you put forward Andrew.

With that in mind are you seriously saying that the God who made us all really favoured one group over all others?

Seems odd for the father of *all* creation to be so partial

"But what is the point of criticising Christianity from the old testament?

Isnt it the basis of your religion? Sure Jesus and the changes he urged are what distinguishes you lot from Islam and Judaism, yet I hvent met a christian who doesnt refer to *information* from it at some point.

Infact I think you and I have been "here" before

"The point is that the Christian moral code comes from Jesus, and can be found in the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. If you want to find something questionable or temporary about the Christian moral code, I would say look there, not at an obvious exception that occurred many centuries before Jesus.

Why pick those two examples and not any of the other "advice" or rules. Im cool with abandoning the Old Testament as not relevant but you have brought it in again, even after you said that things in it couldnt necessarily be trusted. Did Moses really go up that mountain?

Why are those ten rules more important than the rules in Leviticus?