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

I think (correct me if I'm wrong)that Leviticus is actually a book of instructions for the Levites, the priestly tribe, and its rules arguably don't apply to everyone else.

"Guided" evolution always seems to me to be "slow creationism". The point of evolutionary theory is that such a guiding hand is not required.

Noggin

You may be right, Nog. In which case the book of Leviticus is utterly irellevant. But why stop there?

Since we can agree that it is at least possible that somebody's idea of God's instruction manual for a now defunct cult has absolutely no value beyond that of hisorical literary curiousity, is it not equally possible that other parts of the same book have a similar value or utility? Perhaps all of it?

On a related matter, I'd like to ask anyone who uses the bible as a touchstone for faith and for moral guidance to explain just how they decide which parts are to be taken literally, which parts are allegorical/metaphorical, which are carved in stone,literal truth, and which are true insofar as the "message" is true.

I'm genuinely mystified as to what criteria Christians employ, in other words, to sift out the silly, useless, irellevant bits from the bits they will use as the foundation for their lives and the lives of their children.

Honestly. I'd like to know.

Wouldn't we all.

Noggin

<> Andrew

<< 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.)>> Vicky

So let me get this straight: we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how humans came to be, without invoking god. You say that god had a subtle, undetectable influence, which gave the same result as the scientific explanation.

Can you see why those not pre-disposed to believe in god would simply ignore your explanation as unnecessary wishful thinking? As Noggin said, it's creationism by another name.

<>

Judaism is defunct? First I'd heard!



<>

No, you wouldn't really. Because like everyone else, you've been told often enough, but you don't want to listen.
Andrew S just told you that the OT has been largely superseded for Christians, so I am forced to conclude you just weren't paying attention!

(I am not as nice a person as Andrew... )

Vicky

Hey, hold your horses! Let's not get into a bun fight... maybe a few mixed metaphors will calm things down a bit. There are lots of questions, but I'll try to answer them as best I can.

Ok Blicky, I see the point. The thing is that we humans find it easy to make mistakes and go wrong, and it's relatively difficult for us to resist temptation (I'm reiterating Catholic theology here, not giving a sermon). But Adam and Eve were different, before the fall. So what they did was a) all their fault, b) due to malice, not weakness, and c) if they fell, so would every other human in their place.

Also, I realise you weren't attacking in a nasty way. This is more like a rugby match, as someone said earlier, so there are lots of tackles flying around, made in the best spirit of the game. I would think of it like that.

In the Old Testament the Jews really were favoured over everyone else. They were God's chosen people. Under the New Covenant everyone can enjoy the privilege, if they want it.

I agree also that the Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament, but they are specifically endorsed by Jesus in the New Testament, in the Sermon on the Mount, and in other passages, e.g. the account of the rich young man who asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life. So my reference is directly to Jesus, and only indirectly to the Old Testament.

Of course, you are right that the Old Testament is important for Christians, but the key thing is that it is always seen through the prism of the New Testament, and Jesus specifically instituted a new scheme of things; much of Leviticus, for instance, is made obsolete and is not binding (for a Christian at least).

<<"Guided" evolution always seems to me to be "slow creationism". The point of evolutionary theory is that such a guiding hand is not required.>>

I don't think it's creationism at all. Creationism is a denial of evolution and I don't think the concept would be a conscious one without that denial.

Is the point of evolutionary theory that a guiding hand is not required? It might be a side-effect, but I don't think it's the point. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one, don't you think?

So I don't think the two are incompatible. It seems to me that it is atheists and fundamentalists by and large who think they are, and to me neither neither seem to be quite reasonable. (Hey, this is a rugby tackle, right?)

<>

I would respond, Christians have always believed that some of the Old Testament is of purely historical interest. In fact the New Testament says so. But what document do you appeal to in order to persuade a Christian that the New Testament is defunct? I merely ask this to show the problem with your question: I doubt it can change anyone's opinion.

<>

Not Judaism, Della, but Levites as a priestly caste within the ancient scattered Hebraic cults. But then you knew that, didn't you? Are you back to pretending to be too stupid to understand the simplest statements? I thought you'd evolved.

<>

No, you wouldn't really. Because like everyone else, you've been told often enough, but you don't want to listen. >>

The question stands. Please don't accuse me of being a liar.

<<(I am not as nice a person as Andrew... )>>

A statement of the obvious.

Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to start the new year off with your old trolling habits?

F19585?thread=280257

(See entire conversation; especially posts 298ff.)

TRiG.

<>

There are several sides to this, so I'll summarise: I don't think there would be any result without God, i.e. no universe to start with, and no life. I am happy with the proposed evolutionary mechanism, and I think the laws, whatever they are exactly, are geared to eventually producing us. I am not an advocate of so-called "intelligent design" as a scientific theory: it might make sense in the philosophical realm but then it would not be the same theory. I see evolution itself as a result of Divine Providence, and indeed the laws that go to make it work.

My counter question would be, what do you think is the cause of anything at all? Do you in fact see a need for philosophy, or do you think science has all the answers in this area?

Thank you TRiG, that is very useful. I think there are exceptions to the rule, but they are usually signposted.

Hmm, I like the rugby tackle metaphor.

And I'll get back to you about the other stuff later.

Hello Kelapasatu, I see I missed your main question:

<>

This is a deep one, and you will get different answers from different people. In brief, Catholics don't think the Bible interprets itself, and they (I mean we) accept the teaching authority of the Church on these matters.

On the other point, like Vicky I thought you were referring to Judaism on first reading, but thank you for the clarification, and it is clear on re-reading.

Thanks for the replies Andrew.

Im interested in what you say. For a time I held similar views and wonder why other people think this way too.

"But Adam and Eve were different, before the fall. So what they did was a) all their fault, b) due to malice, not weakness, and c) if they fell, so would every other human in their place.

"I am happy with the proposed evolutionary mechanism, and I think the laws, whatever they are exactly, are geared to eventually producing us. I am not an advocate of so-called "intelligent design" as a scientific theory: it might make sense in the philosophical realm but then it would not be the same theory. I see evolution itself as a result of Divine Providence, and indeed the laws that go to make it work.

What Id like to focus on here is how can these two things go together?

Part of the "laws" of evolutionary theory that you speak of preclude the whole garden of Eden scenario where there was just one bloke and one bird from whom every other human is diresctly descended.

Even in the remote possibility that things could be the way you seem to suggest they worked I still have a problem with accepting the moral rectitude of punishing descedents for the actions of their anscetors.

Then there are the poor serpents who were punished for what the devil did!

one love

<> (kelapasatu)

I've been asking this question here for years, kelapasatur. Still waiting for a sensible answer.

Meanwhile, enjoy this short film clip from The West Wing. An excellent chapter and verse argument against literal translation 'cherry picking' from the bible ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU&feature=related

az

In terms of the New Testament, I'd be interested to hear from any Christian, who it was who decided that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, were the gospels that were selected as the ones to be in the NT. There was a doco here a few months ago that said there were in fact quite few other gospels written about Jesus' life, which gave a different account from the synoptics and John, they weren't included in the NT; sorry can't remember any ref to that doco.



BUT, there was an interesting one, that I can refer to, which was on Christmas day evening, presented by the Christian theologian, Robert Beckford, which I have mentioned to Vicky on the Dawkins thread.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/mic..._you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html

The programme was principally about all the very similar stories there are to Jesus' story about 'saviour' like figures, in other faiths, some predating christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years.

The main point I'm making however is that he went to a museum in Egypt to view the 'Thomas' gospel. This gospel contains the teachings of Christ, but makes no mention of Jesus' miracles, and virgin birth and the resurrection of jesus after *dying* on the cross. It is absolutely authenticated as genuine. And indeed the theologian was actually very excited to hold it in his hands.

So why is this gospel not in the NT? Could it just be because it would have been somewhat inconvenient for those who wished to spread and promalgate the story of Jesus/godhead, with which we are all so familiar from the 'official' selected gospels?

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html

This link works.

<>

This is a deep one, and you will get different answers from different people. In brief, Catholics don't think the Bible interprets itself, and they (I mean we) accept the teaching authority of the Church on these matters. (ANDREW)

Thank you, Andrew. One or two points, if I may...

The "Church's teachings change over the years, and the "Church's" interpretations of biblical wisdom evolves. Does that mean that the "meaning" changes with time and context?

And, since we will get different answers from different people, and all, presumably have some validity, is it fair to say that the scriptures are merely a matter of personal interpretation?

Doesn't that make the immutable Holy Book a little like a Rorschach test? You know, a way of diagnosing particular neuroses by examining the patient's interpretation of something that is only meaningful to the patient?