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

az

"The earth is just now getting crowded now... and the verse you quote states that that is God's intent... to let us cover the Earth!"
Just goes to proove what I said! By the way, it's not getting crowded everywhere at the same rate and nature is doing a good job of keeping the numbers down."

REALLY?

"The EF [Ecological Footprint] of the world average consumer in 1999 was 2.3 hectares per person, or 20% above the earth’s biological capacity of 1.90 hectares per person. In other words, humanity now exceeds the planet’s capacity to sustain its consumption of renewable resources."
WWF, Living Planet Report 2002

"Sustainability requires living within the regenerative capacity of
the biosphere. In an attempt to measure the extent to which
humanity satisfies this requirement, we use existing data to
translate human demand on the environment into the area re-quired
for the production of food and other goods, together with
the absorption of wastes. Our accounts indicate that human
demand may well have exceeded the biosphere’s regenerative
capacity since the 1980s. According to this preliminary and explor-atory
assessment, humanity’s load corresponded to 70% of the
capacity of the global biosphere in 1961, and grew to 120% in 1999."

Mathis Wackernagel et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol 99, July 2002

Bod

Moth -

I mean, that Christianity can spread easily, if people work together.

Personally, biology is my weak suit...

Myst
It's my opinion that love, understanding, compassion,honesty, and peace, to name but a few attributes, can spread more easily if people of ALL cultures, creeds and beliefs work together.

Plus
There's this thought in my mind and I'm certain you don't intend it, but it's there nevertheless.
All this talk about feeding the starving, has an unpleasant ring of White Christian supremacy about it. The thought that we climb down from our superior position to feed those less fortunate has it's roots in Victorian Christianity when the right compassionate thing to do was not to take their assets in the first place and we should now attempt to put things right by discontinuing the theft and helping them to feed themselves. Temporary hand outs to make us feel good about ourselves are not the answer to world poverty.
We cannot feel good about giving back what we took can we?
Charity is about as good as bombing Bhagdad to save the population from a dictatorship We put in place as a solution to OUR concerns and this was done by one of the worlds most famous Christians in the name of erradicating the world of 'evil doers' (and never mind the innocent in the meantime)
As a soldier I know on returning from a tour of duty in Afghanistan says, the place is a hundred times worse off now, after recent Western intervention. Of course that fact is not in the current media stories.

No, I wouldn't suggest temporary. I don't know how we'd do it to make things stick, though... never really could figure out any fool proof way.

I wish someone would, though.

"... as we forgive our debtors" would be a good start. Relief for unpayable and often unjust debts would release $300 billion for the "third world" and let them spend money on health care and education which is currently diverted to rich creditors.

It has been estimated that the "third world"'s environmental and economic problems could be solved at a cost of $75 billion per annum. (Bjorn Lomborg)

According to the UN, unfair trade rules biased in favour of the rich divert $100 billion from poor countries... every eight weeks!

So that's a direction for how to make things better. Stop stealing from the poor and let them take charge of their livelihoods.

What can you and I do about it?

Here are some ideas...

http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/
http://www.tjm.org.uk/

Bod

Bravo Bod

Hi Myst ,,,>^..^<,,,

"He can be sure if He wishes. And how can you possibly called irrelivant? It's a get out of jail free card for anyone, anyone who sins and cares enough about themselves to take it! If all the world knew of Him, which is the way I would had it, we'd never have to worry!"

It is irrelevant because He has not empowered the preachers of His word to reach every corner of humanity nor given them the ability to convince those that they do reach. Thus He has not ensured that everyone has that choice. He is allowing billions to become damned through no fault of their own! And how about those that are unable to understand His offer? You keep dodging this because it is is very uncomfortable, for which I don't blame you .

"You know, the Bible makes sure that you know that Christ lives a blameless life. The sin you are punished for are your own, not anyone else's! "

No it doesn't if you never get the opportunity to read or hear it. The doctrine of original sin undermines your whole argument here, for you could live a blameless life but if you do not understand and accept God or His offer of salvation you are damned all the same. The very first commandment damns 75% of the world's population, very compassionate .

You have sidestepped my question about the Flood. Thus I shall repeat it: Do you think that every creature on earth, every child, every babe in arms deserved to die? Were they truly sinful?

"Amazing. You still believe that my God is barbaric."

Show me evidence to the contrary.

"Do you actually read my posts, listen to my examples? Because all I see is you pointing to a few examples that you see as wrong, and doggedly ignoring the good that He and His people have done in this world."

Yes I read your posts and see you continually sidestepping the uncomfortable questions I ask. I don't ignore the good that individual Christians have done, just as I also do not ignore the evils they have perpetuated in Christ's name. I look dispassionately at the whole kit and kaboodle and in balance find it wanting.

If you are to sell your faith effectively Myst, you must be able to convince others that its core principles are sound. Look on this thread as a friendly training ground. If you cannot sell these principles to people who are as passioantely interested in religion and faith as the crowd in here, then either you are a failure (and I assure you we do not think that of you at all) or there is something wrong with the principles themselves. If these core principles cannot be sold, or are very difficult to sell then more people will become damned for no fault of their own. This is the true failure of the christian mission.

"Read some of the New Testament. See what He, my God, would have us do as we live our lives."

I have read the NT, until my eyes and spirit grow weary. I was given a good Catholic education and have spent my life studying (in my spare time) comparative theology. There is nothing new or special in what Christ would have us do. Practically every religion on earth sells the same principles for living. Not all religions though seem to think that the only way to make you lead a good life is to threaten you with eternal damnation if you do not.

The NT has its high points, and these are mostly in the Gospels. It also has its low points such as Paul's letters and in Revelations. But it is neither original nor special, nor has the corner on compassion.

I suggest that you take your eyes out of it for a while and read the Qu'ran, the Talmud and the Torah, the Vedas, the works of Buddha and those of the present Dalai Lama. Do some hard work at the coal face of comparative theology and then look at it again.

"You would call caring for a needy widow barbaric? You would call forgiving your neighbor under all circumstances barbaric? You would call turning the other cheek barbaric?"

No I would call the first a naturally charitable act.

The second naieve and possibly irresponsible, for what if the 'neighbour' reoffends. The Catholic Church is learning its lesson with this second one, over the broken lives of thousands of victims of paedophile priests who were forgiven again and again.

The third is just dumb and the natural reaction of a slave. Don't get me wrong, I abhor violence, but if someone moved to harm me or mine, I would do all I could to prevent that, for if I did not then I would be abdicating my responsibility to prevent violence.

"I wish you'd take your fingers out of your ears and actually listen to my resoning. But, in my experiance, that rarely happens. I challenge you, then, to think of how my God could save the world, if only people would be willing to change."

I have listened to your reasoning and found it to be flawed. I have pointed out these flaws and just had the same arguments repeated at me. If your God is all that you believe Him to be, then he could save the whole world in a heartbeat. He would only need to place the choice of salvation over sin to each being. He would not have to take away anyone's free will, just ensure, through his omnipotence, that everyone has the choice clear in their minds.

So why doesn't he? Why does he allow billions to slip through his hands and into eternal damnation? A damnation that He has chosen to create?The evil and the good, the rich and the poor, the virtuous and the innocents?

If you truly know your lord and know that is not how it works, then show me.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Math. You have rattled my cage now. I appreciate that, on a literal reading of the Bible, you have the best of the argument. However when it comes to freewill, that requires actions not words. As a psychologist I know that there is a considerable difference between what people say they want and what they actually vote for, for example. Some Christians believe that there are 144,000 'elect' who are or will be saved and nobody who isn't among them can do anything about it. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one such group although they keep quiet about this particular facet to non-members.

I think your view pretty much amounts to the idea that God could bring about this kind of situation. Surely, we all see that it is not a 'good thing'. Freewill requires the possibility of bad consequences of our actions or inaction - as well as good ones. God is not in a position to lie to us by saying that so-and-so will harm people so tell me you won't do it. If He says it's so the requirement is that it really will happen otherwise He's lying. That isn't on. You might think it would be worth it, but it seems that God knows better.

In reply to that reply to my last rant, it is entirely logical for "random" to be how the slug got there. A self-replicating molecule with the capacity to replicate, such as those that have been created chemically in the laboratory, must result in life. If it changes (that's why it needs to mutate), it will either change for the better or for the worse. If it changes for the worse, it will have a decreased chance of survival and replication, which means it is less likely to have ancestors that share its deficiency. If it is for the better, it will have an increased chance of survival and replication, which means it is more likely to pass on its successful mutation to its ancestors.

If you don't think this is perfect logic, you're an idiot. Note that I am being conditional here so it doesn't count as an insult.

Math -

What is the smiley thing? Looks like a chamelion or a lizard of some sort...?


>>It is irrelevant because He has not empowered the preachers of His word to reach every corner of humanity nor given them the ability to convince those that they do reach. Thus He has not ensured that everyone has that choice. He is allowing billions to become damned through no fault of their own! And how about those that are unable to understand His offer? You keep dodging this because it is is very uncomfortable, for which I don't blame you.<<

There are very few who can't understand what it means to be forgiven, my friend. And my feet could take me all over this planet, from one corner of the earth to the other, spreading the good news. God works through us with the Holy Spirit, and has done so with me before, guiding my words as so I could convey what I needed to.

As for some questions, I may not have the answers for, but I am learning. I, at long last, have joined a Bible study; perhaps someday I will be able to help you further in areas I cannot now. Until then, have patience with me.


>>No it doesn't if you never get the opportunity to read or hear it. The doctrine of original sin undermines your whole argument here, for you could live a blameless life but if you do not understand and accept God or His offer of salvation you are damned all the same. The very first commandment damns 75% of the world's population, very compassionate.<<

I think God explains it quite clearly...

"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Ezekiel 18:19-20

Now, about the first commandment. What I said earlier still holds true. If Christianity, as a whole, would take the time, we could tell the world of His salvation. You should blame me and my fellows for this, not God.


>>You have sidestepped my question about the Flood. Thus I shall repeat it: Do you think that every creature on earth, every child, every babe in arms deserved to die? Were they truly sinful?<<

I did not sidestep it. No, I don't like it that the children died. The creatures matter little to me in comparison to the souls of the living, however. I don't know what God was thinking, yet I doubt it ran anywhere along the lines of, 'Hmm, I hate my chosen creations, I think I'll kill off a large majority of them.


>>Show me evidence to the contrary.<<

How many times will I point this out, and how many times will you ignore it?

"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whomever should believe in Him would not perish, but have eternal life."

John 3:16

There are many many more verses to this extent, and if you really still don't want to listen, I will quote whatever ones I can find. A barbaric God would not care one way or another. And one more thing.

He cares enough to have had me find you. And I care enough not to give up on you. Even if you have.


>>If these core principles cannot be sold, or are very difficult to sell then more people will become damned for no fault of their own. This is the true failure of the christian mission.<<

And which core principals are unsound? The selfless life, to give up your greed and follow the lord? To help the needy? To heal the sick and wounded? To resist anger, and to resolve conflicts? My friend, I have yet to see a core value of Christianity which apalls me. I still cannot see what it is that you find so repusive about my core values, and that of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I understand that you've had some real... well, I can't say it here, for moderation, but let's call them sphincters. And I apologise to those offended by this word, and I apologise again for the actions that the irresponsible parties. But don't let the fools that remain prevelant in this world ruin your sight.


>>Not all religions though seem to think that the only way to make you lead a good life is to threaten you with eternal damnation if you do not.<<

You may choose to see life in two ways. The glass is half full, or half empty.
Threat of damnnation, or promise of salvation and happiness.


>>I suggest that you take your eyes out of it for a while and read the Qu'ran, the Talmud and the Torah, the Vedas, the works of Buddha and those of the present Dalai Lama. Do some hard work at the coal face of comparative theology and then look at it again.<<

My first step is to actually read the Bible itself. Like I said at one point, I'm only just really finding out what being a Christian means. I've still yet to read most of the OT, and a good deal of the New. But when I know enough about what my Lord would have me know, then I will persue will all speed what other men believe.


>>The second naieve and possibly irresponsible, for what if the 'neighbour' reoffends. The Catholic Church is learning its lesson with this second one, over the broken lives of thousands of victims of paedophile priests who were forgiven again and again.<<

Not forgiven, I think you'll find. If one doesn't regret the sin, how can he be forgiven? If I strike you, for example, out of anger, and then realize what a stupid fool I am, what was I thinking... would you forgive me? Then, yes, one should forgive. It creates a bond between people, a very strong bond indeed. I asked forgivness of an enemy a while back, someone whom I though I hated. And, we both are now rather good companions.


>>The third is just dumb and the natural reaction of a slave. Don't get me wrong, I abhor violence, but if someone moved to harm me or mine, I would do all I could to prevent that, for if I did not then I would be abdicating my responsibility to prevent violence.<<

The context I would believe does not mean physical violence as the intent. A slap would be an insult. To allow further insults, and to ignore them, there is a strong will behind that.


>>So why doesn't he? Why does he allow billions to slip through his hands and into eternal damnation? A damnation that He has chosen to create? The evil and the good, the rich and the poor, the virtuous and the innocents?<<

Again, He doesn't allow it. We, I, allow it. That's why I'm here. He chooses to let us decide our own fates, for better or for worse. The fact that one may choose worse is for them alone, well, is up to them. I imagine you'd be very offended if God decided to make you believe in Him.

Go in His peace,

<(((><

>>If you don't think this is perfect logic, you're an idiot. Note that I am being conditional here so it doesn't count as an insult.<<

No, door. You're simply saying that if I don't believe as you do, I'm an idiot.

...

Guilty of idiocy on all accounts!

You see, I find the odds of this rather intriguing.

Chance of all proteins forming for a primordial soup:
= chance of one protein forming ^ number of proteins
= (chance of correct amino acid ^ number of amino acids) ^ number of proteins
= ((1 / 40)50) to the 2000th power.
= 1 / (1080) to the 2000th power.
= 1 / 10 to the 160000th power.

According to the amount of time science says the universe has existed, we haven't had enough time for this to happen yet. This is the primordial ooze.

Wow, we're really lucky, then, aren't we?

Now, excuse my rampant idiocy, but that seems like a very big number to me. You're suggesting that not only did this happen, that it wound up producing, say, eyes? Or, how about acne? Where does that fit in?

>>If it changes for the worse, it will have a decreased chance of survival and replication, which means it is less likely to have ancestors that share its deficiency. If it is for the better, it will have an increased chance of survival and replication, which means it is more likely to pass on its successful mutation to its ancestors.<<

So, let's see here. We've got the first molecule that can replicate itself, that has not been made in a lab, wherever you could find something like that at. So, if things go well /every time for a very long time,/ it survives. What if something goes wrong, oh, say, when there are two of the molecules? They both vanish. Then you have a very, /very/ long time to wait for the next one to show up...

I apologise, though, for those of you who are enlightened, having listen to my inane babbling.

<(((><

I haven't read the whole of the conversation so I don't know if my point has been discussed.
What I want to know is How can people believe in something that they have never seen?
How is it that people that say they belive in god (any god, but usualy catholics), how can they be so cruel and nasty to children (nuns & priests in childrens homes)? They deprave them of things (life)& abuse them, but because they "believe in GOD" they think this is ok, & that they are exempt from the law. Don't mean to be heavy it just makes me

I know that & archaeologists have spent years trying to prove Jesus exhisted, and to some degree the think thety have found some evidence, but until I myself have seen (with my own )I refuse to belive. I like the stories though.


CHeEky

PS. Av a mars!

I haven't read the whole of the conversation so I don't know if my point has been discussed.
What I want to know is How can people believe in something that they have never seen?
How is it that people that say they belive in god (any god, but usualy catholics), how can they be so cruel and nasty to children (nuns & priests in childrens homes)? They deprave them of things (life)& abuse them, but because they "believe in GOD" they think this is ok, & that they are exempt from the law. Don't mean to be heavy it just makes me

I know that & archaeologists have spent years trying to prove Jesus exhisted, and to some degree the think thety have found some evidence, but until I myself have seen (with my own )I refuse to belive. I like the stories though.


CHeEky

PS. Av a mars!

>>Good grief does this mean I am more forgiving and compassionate then God?<<
You *know* Moth, that you are not more compassionate than God, as I know I am not - so I think probably there's some misunderstanding going on somewhere...

> For one thing, man (and woman ,) were created perfect. By their own actions, they introduced the flaws.

This begins to come down to semantics and logic... i.e. what do you mean by 'created perfect'?

To use an engineering approach: If an engineer unintentionally designed a machine that could damage itself, it would usually be considered a flawed design resulting in a flawed machine.

If the engineer deliberately designed a machine that could damage itself, it would usually be called a stupid design.

However, in the real world, compromises have to be made, so it is conceivable that an engineer might design a machine that, as a result of increased flexibility of action, might, in some circumstances, damage itself. In this case, it is a deliberate compromise in the full knowledge that damage might result. So a machine that perfectly satisfies its design requirements is constructed. Is it a perfect machine? Well, it's debatable, because it is a compromise...

OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we consider the machine constructed in the latter circumstance to be 'perfect'. If the machine damaged itself in operation, the designer would shrug and say "I knew that could happen - the machine worked as it was designed to do, but the result was due to a deliberate design compromise". It is a risk the designer knowingly takes, IOW the designer is responsible.

Now the only difference I see between the last example machine and the 'creation' of humans, is the introduction of the concept of 'free will'. If a creator bestows free will on a creation such that it can damage itself, it is a perfect creation? Can it be held responsible for damage as a result of exercising a facility explicitly provided by its creator?

What is meant by free will? Does it consist to some degree of the ability to take any action whatsoever that the creation is physically and mentally capable of? It's a difficult concept to analyse, because some humans are humans physically and mentally capable of far more than others, and two humans of approximately equal physical capability may differ greatly in their mental capacity for certain actions. One large fly in the ointment is the influence of the environment ('Give me your child until he is 9 and he will be mine for life'). Can a human who is indoctrinated to act contrary to some other moral code be held morally responsible for breaches of that code? Does that individual have free will?

It seems to me most or all humans are limited in the actions they can freely choose, regardless of their physical capabilities, both as a result of their mental limitations and their social/moral education. Free will seems to be a moveable feast. If this is the case, it is hard to see why a creator wishing for a perfect creation with free will does not create such a being able to exercise free will except where self damage may occur. A perfect being that may choose to take any action except those which will knowingly result in imperfection.

The alternative seems to be the situation of the engineer that knowingly and deliberately creates a machine that can damage itself, then throws a strop when it happens.

> There seemed to be no real difficulty. The only challenge was from Satan, who decided to interced and arouse Eve's curiosity

The difficuly was that this 'perfect' being, Eve, was open to temptation (is this not a weakness, a flaw?). So it would appear almost inevitable that Satan, the tempter and deceiver, would eventually succeed in tempting her. She responded as she was designed to do - perfectly, by succumbing to the temptation. Who was responsible? Satan? the creator? Eve?

I'll try posting a link (holds breath and remembers Mama always used to say 'it's all in the way you hold your mouth'...) despite my son working in IT, I am not very adept with this stuff...
This *should* work...A615395

Ah, why did it not? I'll try it all isolated and by its lonesome...

A615395

Brilliant! I wish there was a NZ branch - maybe there is - I'll have to see what I can find.