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

<>

It's curious to me that you have yet to learn that personal abuse if not a legitimate debating tactic.


<>

I've no clue about the religious beliefs of the judge in question, or indeed of any judges in New Zealand. I have only this one experience of court in my life, and *I* am not of the social class that numbers judges and lawyers amongst its casual friends and acquaintances.
<>
Abusive and irrelevant.

<>

Argument from authority, and snobbishness, not to mention name-dropping. You lose points.

As it happens my ex is a lawyer. But I wouldn't dream of invoking him to back up my views. I am not a snob

Vicky

Happy New Year!!

¡Feliz Año Nuevo!

az

Well I would guess their point is probably that your first duty is to God, and that if you make an oath to someone else then you might not be able to keep it because of that. Given all Jesus' sayings about ignoring the material world and giving up your existing friends and family and connections.

I'm just curious how that has been reconciled in later times when Christians were no longer a bunch of nomadic heretics, but had become the establishment.

<>(Math)

I agree with this and also feel very strongly about oaths. Not being a Christian I would find it unseemly to take an oath (in a public court of law, for example) with my hand on the bible, as the bible means nothing to me personally.


az

<>

Exactly! For different reasons there are both Christians and non Christians who feel uncomfortable about oaths.
(A few years back, NZ elected its first Muslim MP. He swore his oath as an MP on the Koran, and there were people on what I call Right Wing Radio who had the nerve to say that meant the oath wasn't binding on him, or that he intended it not to be. How appallingly ignorant!


Vicky

I agree, Az.

Perhaps it is the biblical proscription against taking oaths that makes christians feel that oaths are meaningless.

The inclination of christians to pick and choose their biblical injunctions, to disregard the inconvenient ones, support the ones that dovetail with their pre-existing prejudices; all of these things seem to be part and parcel of the christian inclination to disregard their own oaths.

Look at the oaths they swear before their god when they get married; look at the casual way those oaths are disregarded then repeated the next time around.

If I was a judge, I suspect my inclination would be to assume that anyone who swears anything on a bible is preparing to lie. Give me a personal affirmation every time; it's as strong as the deponent's character...no more, no less.

This article makes some points about the trustworthiness of those who wear their religion on their sleeves.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/Archives/ArchivesDet2.asp?FileID=20071106.E04

<>

So, you think everyone who gets married in church is a Christian? Doubt it!

VL

Contrary to my instincts to ignore you, I have to ask:

What on earth are you talking about about?

There is absolutely no connection between the quote you start with and your statement telling me what I think. Please try to make a little sense, okay?

Hi Blicky.
Returning to your question, which I think is key, I am quite happy with evolution and 'original sin', as they call it. I am not a biologist, but if nearly all biologists vouch for evolution that is quite good enough for me. As for the other subject area affected, i.e., theology, if God exists, which I believe, then he can intervene at any point in history or even prehistory. So there's no incompatibility between the one and the other.

As to the tree in the garden, I believe in a test which all mankind failed, of which the tree is a symbol. The Christian belief is tied to a test, not the literal existence of the tree, and that is where I think many get it wrong, both Christians and (because of them) their more agnostic critics.

Hello Pedro
<>

True, I think... I think the context is everything though. My belief in God and his providence does not come from evolution, it arises elsewhere; so naturally it feeds into everything, including inevitably evolution. I also wonder whether my terminology is confusing. By 'creating' I simply mean 'making'. God could create through evolution. The 'creationists' of course don't mean that; but that has only been an issue for the last 150 years or so.

Hi Kel/Noggin
I hesitate to get into the area of interpretation, but... some of the Bible does interpret itself, and much of the rest is clear enough such that interpretation is not really an issue. But there are passages on which Christians differe, and have done so from quite early on. Many of these differences have remained more or less constant, i.e. they haven't shifted much with time and place; it's simply a question of the 'reading'. One such reading led to the Arian controversy in the fourth century, and another led to the Catholic/Orthodox split in the tenth century (I think it was). Then there is a separate set of differences that arose in the middle ages and sparked off the Reformation. Ironically one of the issues was 'sola scriptura', the Protestant teaching that the Bible is their authority.

Gaah! That should have read: 'the Bible alone is their authority'. I hope that's acceptable...

But... Math, Vicky, Kel...
A Christian can take oaths. I'm sure Math would know that, coming from a Catholic background. Canon Law provides for oaths (Canon 1199-1201) and at times an oath is even required, e.g. an oath of fidelity on assuming office, although usually a simple profession of faith is required. God himself swears an oath in Hebrews 7:20-22 (also Psalm 110, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, where they are actually recommended, although I guess that's only indirect support as to what Christians can do).

Jesus' words in Matthew 5:33-37 are an indictment of abuses, and are usually seen in the light of his condemnation of the scribes and pharisees in Matthew 23:16-22. At any rate Christians have always taken oaths, e.g. in courts of law. They take vows too, which are not quite the same thing but are obviously related (if you want to see the difference, look up the Code of Canon Law).

I guess you're right.

Seems the bible will permit or denounce anything you like.

So what's the point?

I agree up to a point. It's an argument against 'sola scriptura', I think, but then I'm not the person to defend 'sola scriptura' as it's not a Catholic tenet. My belief is that Jesus founded a church, and that's the key authority in matters of interpretation. The church gave us the Christian part of the Bible, among other things.

<>


Once more...since it can mean anything you want it to, what's the point?

Why not use goat's entrails, tea leaves, a Jackson Pollock painting, or a puddle of dog vomit?

Hello sudamalu. My stab at an answer is two-fold:
a) I don't think the Bible can say anything you want, even without an interpreter - at least, not reasonably. Its teachings (for want of a better word) lie within a certain range.
b) However, the Bible, although necessary for Christians, is not sufficient by itself as a rule of faith. It needs the context of the teachings of the church (say Catholics), from which it arose.

So my response to the question, why not use entrails rather than the Bible, is that the church does not recommend the practice. (Actually it condemns it, but that's a separable issue.) By all means use a rohrschacht blot, if you prefer...!

So lets summarise, Andrew.

We both accept the evidence for evolution.

Me because everything Ive ever seen or heard in support of it stacks up logically, you it seems because enough people you dont really know agree on it and tell you its true. Ironically that's pretty much the reason I used to believe in the bigG.

You seem to have said that you dont believe that the story of A|dam and Eve in the garden is true literally but represents the way the bigG tested humanity and humanity failed.

Now if that were Ford motors who found such a major fault you'd expect a product recall. Lets remember they are a company concerned with profit and eager to protect or increase their market share. The BigG on the other hand has infinite time, resources and well anything he wants with no other gods to compete against, but still cant get the problem ironed out.

That's a side issue really what sticks in my craw as staggeringly unfair is that in his book the bigG fudges the facts. What exactly was this test how many people actually failed it and why are we still being punished for it and carrying around a fault inherent in us that he lets continue and we are powerless to overcome why did Jesus *have to* die to put it right and where do snakes come into it all?

<>

It's curious to me that you have yet to learn that personal abuse if not a legitimate debating tactic.

True Della, but if you dont like it why keep using it?

Arent Christians supposed to turn the other cheek, avoid things they know are bad and do unto other as they would have other do unto them?


"*I* am not of the social class that numbers judges and lawyers amongst its casual friends and acquaintances.

Liar you are of the social class that mixes with judges and lawyers, well you are if you are working class like me, I know one judge, several JPs and more lawyers.


<>

Argument from authority, and snobbishness, not to mention name-dropping. You lose points.

As it <>

Argument from authority, and snobbishness, not to mention name-dropping. You lose points.

As it happens my ex is a lawyer. But I wouldn't dream of invoking him to back up my views. I am not a snobhappens my ex is a lawyer. But I wouldn't dream of invoking him to back up my views. I am not a snob


Name dropping
Its bad form to drop the names of Canadian states now?

if this argument from authority is so bad, let me just remind you who mentioned what ONE member of the legal profession told them and who dropped it into the thread to support their argument. It was the same liar who posted racist abuse anddeath threats, but now pretends it never happened.

<>

Argument from authority, and snobbishness, not to mention name-dropping. You lose points.

"As it happens my ex is a lawyer. But I wouldn't dream of invoking him to back up my views.

No much easier to log on another account and pretend to be your own sister or to create any number of other sockpuppets like "Flora Light" and post corroborating arguments from those accounts.

Anyway make up whatever mind you posses to work out if you mix with lawywers or dont.


"I am not a snob

Quite tight your not becoming a snob would be a step from being a veteran liar though!