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

PS I thought I'd better add that I'm not arguing the fact that two opposing elements can negate an effect.
It's how objects can be sustained for a while. But ultimately change will happen due to other elements.

Hi Math,

So about evil: I was mostly using "evil" (in inverted commas) in recognition of the spiritual problems associated with the concept.

For evil, please read "that which contributes to suffering and/or pain in the world".

Are you OK with that, or do you disagree that suffering and pain exist?

Bod

Hi Moth,

"no, change is real, and time the invented measurement of it"

Excellent. Indeed, time is an "abstract concept created by a fearful mankind in an attempt to impose order on an otherwise random universe" (quote, but I can't remember who said it...)

Bit like God?

Bod

Moth. This is so difficult, but I think we might be getting there. I'm now trying to get you to understand what I'm saying more than making the final point!

Some causes tend to prevent change, others to produce it. Isn't that obvious? Every cause must have an effect, but the effect is not always a change. Sometimes the effect is to oppose another cause so that certain changes (not all of course) do not occur. Pushing something tends to move it. Static friction tends to make it stay where it is. Therefore static friction, and the chain of causes which result in it, tends to prevent *that particular change - movement*, not every change, of course. Pushing tends to result in movement.

Therefore we have a cause that makes for no change and one that does make for change. Plus, of course, millions more that we aren't discussing right now; some of which cause one and some the other. Sure the object will be changing in all sorts of ways, but in one fewer way because of the static friction.

I don't ask whether you agree but simply whether you understand what I am saying.

Hi Moth,

"I believe that Jesus said that everthing he had promised re heaven and hell would come to pass within one generation"

He didn't specify HUMAN generation, did he?

There's a tree in the (ant?)arctic which is some 4,000 years old and counting...

Bod

Thank you for link to Kant Noggin
Reading it now

Bod. Jesus said 'this generation' not some other generation. It would be sheer casuistry to take that to refer to an arctic tree!

Hi Insight,

"If Adam and Eve were mythical, why does the gospel of Luke give Jesus lineage all the way back to Adam?"

More interestingly (I think), why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ?

Bod

Yes, Toxx, it would. I was just jesting, not intending to be taken seriously. I do like Della's interpretation though; a bit "we suffer until we achieve nirvana"...

Bod

Toxx and Insight:

If God chooses what is labelled "good" and "evil" (yes I know Math - shorthand! Keep that stick away from me! ) then why have some people (Insight et al) latched onto him rather than Satan? Insight, you MUST have some independent way of ascertaining what is good, otherwise to say "God is good" is devoid of meaning.

Bod

I hereby decree that the eating of clementines makes one supremely good. As an eater of clementines I therefore command you all to bow down and worship the Lord your Bod.

Math,

May I join you by Sulphur Outfall Number 4? It would be good to meet you face to face.

Bod

Bod -

Where exactly does Jesus say that the kingdom of God will arrive in this generation? That's what the people thought, in the beginning, but I am not aware of Jesus ever procaiming it as true...

Oh, and the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are not different, because to be different you'd need a geneology in both of them. Luke doesn't bother with one.

Toxx:

Away with evil then. I will replace it with TWCS ("That Which Contributes to Suffering"). Let's say Twix.

I think the core of our disagreement is that I believe that free will can exist without Twix whilst you believe that Twix must exist for free will to be genuine free will. Is my understanding correct?

If so, then do you believe that God could nevertheless intervene to prevent the suffering from occurring, without infringing the Twix actor's freewill? For example, if I intervene to prevent a thug from beating up an old lady, have I really infringed his free will? I don't think so. Do you?

Do you believe that I SHOULD intervene in such a case (assuming I have a chance of succeeding)? If so, don't you think that God should intervene to prevent Twix?

And if you believe that I should NOT intervene, is free will really so valuable that I should leave the old lady to her fate? Somebody has to lose some free will - either the Twix-doer (whose will is to harm) or the victim (whose will is to avoid harm).

Most Chritians etc would claim that God DOES intervene from time to time - in which case they have to explain why he doesn't appear to prioritise and why he doesn't bring an end to all Twix since he is supposedly omnipotent.

Whatcha think?

Bod

Hi Myst,

"Where exactly does Jesus say that the kingdom of God will arrive in this generation? That's what the people thought, in the beginning, but I am not aware of Jesus ever procaiming it as true..."

I don't know - I just dropped in on that conversation. I know about the "until all things come to pass", but I think things are still passing...

"Oh, and the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are not different, because to be different you'd need a geneology in both of them. Luke doesn't bother with one."

My copy does - Luke 3:23 - 27

Bod

Hi Bod, Myst (and anyone who needs to pay more attention in Bible Class.)

Matthew 24.34

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled..."

Amongst some of "these things" are:
Matt. 24 .27

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."

24.28. "For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

24.29."Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;

24.30."And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."....

24.33." So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

24.34."Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."!!!!!

No mistaking the meaning there. No artic trees either, but his own disciples clearly intended.

And certainly the early Church believed fervently that they were going to live to see this apocalypse occur.

As to free will, the nature of evil, and the role of God in all that, go back a page and read the piece on Pelagius and the Pelagian heresy, it's directly relevant to this discussion, chaps.

Bod
We have death to 'make' us appreciate life.
There's a nice little example of the 'need' for twix' in the film the fight club.
We 'need' twix to appreciate the opposite of twix
I don't know if you've seen it.
The weird and getting weirder character Tyler Durden (as played by the fanciable Brad Pitt )
Tyler Durden holds a gun to the head of an innocent bystanding grocery store worker in the car park of the grocery store.
The hero of the film, is very distressed at witnessing his alter ego doing this for no apparent reason other than Tyler appears to enjoy violence.

Tyler tells the bystander that he will shoot him. He asks him to empty his wallet and looks through his things talks about his parents and how they will feel in the event of his murder.
It is cruel and unusual.
Then he asks the bystander what he really wanted to do with his life and the quivering man says he wanted to be a vet and Tyler asks him why he wasn't a vet then.
The bystander answers "it was too hard."
"What, harder than having a gun at your head?"
after much conversation of this type, Tyler gets the bystander to promise he will return to college and study to be the vet he wants to be. and warns him that now he knows his address he will be watching to make certain that he keeps this promise.
He lets the bystander go and laughs, our hero asks why he did all of that and Tyler answers that for by tomorrow the bystander will feel the beauty of the world he's still in and his breakfast will be the most wonderful meals he's ever tasted."
Can you see the metaphour in this story that describes the place we inhabit and why it must have the opposite of good in it, so that we can choose what we want to be?
Was Tyler good or bad giving the results of the action?
sometimes we have to have a 'gun' to our heads to help us to fulfil our purpose and make the decision.
We call that gun, evil or twix, it isn't nice but it appears necessary to give us the free will we go on and on about.
without choice there is no freedom.

Toxx ,yes I understand what you are saying and I hope you can understand that what I am saying is, that the place we exist in operates on the law of cause and effect, which *ultimately * means change.

Thanks for those quotes Chai
I couldn't remember where they appeared.
Saved me trawling through looking.
you'll note that insight retranslated those quotes to fit his own perception and Kat denied they existed .
I find this can happen with all sorts of things, don't like it ignore it.

Pardon me but ...

Surely if Adam was the first man we can all trace our genealogy back to him. And also with Noah.

F

Chai, I don't agree with all the laws of Manu especially the ones on 'Cast' but they are interesting reading.

<quote>
>31. But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.

32. Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; with that (female) he produced Virag.<

By the way Pelagius was not 'probably Irish' he was Welsh(Cwmro) and probably a Druid or had druidic beliefs. He was almost certainly from Britain, where he was born around 350, St. Patrick was born aroud 385 ( The traditional date of his birth) and took Chistianity to the Irish during the years 432-461. Patrick was born somewhere in Britain so he too was a Cwmro(Welshman).
As I said before the name 'Pelagius' comes from the Greek 'pelagios' which means 'of the sea' so his Welsh name would have been 'Morgan' which means 'Man of the sea'

Alji