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

Noggin. I used to be a chartered librarian. You should be able to get any book by request and at least the Kritik should be on the net I imagine. Most stuff that's out of copyright will be eventually.

The quote nicely sums up my point, which is why I like it so much. Some things are Wittgensteinian and are what we choose to call them. Other things are Cartesian and we can be mistaken. A gross oversimplification I know. There can be a counterfiet banknote but not a counterfeit shovel (brand name excepted).

toxxin

Hi Della!

"I am a Christian because we are offered salvation - you're right about that. Because I am aware of my sinfulness, part of the human condition.
I leave the topic of 'original sin' for now, because while I believe that Augustine formulated the doctrine on the basis of a mistranslation, as Hans King said, it's to an extent irrelevant. We have to deal with our own sin, and no one is without a conviction of their need for 'salvation', however you define it."

I presume you mean Hans Kung? Actually, I do not believe I have sin, whether original or self generated. This does not mean I do not believe I do not do wrong. If that was too many negatives, then I do believe I often get things wrong.

"Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, that everybody is aware of having done wrong, of 'sinfulness' (defining sin as 'hamartia', missing the mark. Toxxin probably knows much more than I do about such things...)"

As you are aware, hamartia is a metaphore and does not mean 'sin', though it came to mean that in the ekklesia, through Paul's usage. But Paul was a pharisee and already had a deeply embedded sense of the law and his inability to meet its demands, so he was very much filled with a sense of having missed tha mark in terms of what his God wished from him, and so created the new, Christian, use for the word. Personally, i dislike the word 'sin' as it means not doing the will of the Christian God. I do not worship the Christian God (indeed, I do not 'worship' my own gods - they are partners, relatives, friends and lovers) and so it is not 'sin' I feel when I do not do what I would have preferred to have done, but a sense of disappointment or shame, that I have missed the mark of my own standards for myself.

"I don't think anyone is ever so self satisfied that she believes she has *never* hurt anyone (even their feelings), told an untruth etc.
That's what I meant by aware of their need to be saved - from their sinful nature!"

But Chrisitanity does not necessarily actually help people live up to their ethical standards, it merely offers the promise that, even if they fail, so long as they trust in God, and do what they can, they will be forgiven. This is not the same thing at all. I do not believe that my gods have the power to offer such forgiveness, because it is my own standards I am breaching and they cannot release me from those. Neither do I wish to be released from my standards.

"As Myst has said, it's an offer to good to refuse, salvation for the asking."

But this does not seriously address the problem of those Christians who, try as hard as they can, spend their lives always 'missing the mark'. They pray for release from their desires (or whatever) or the strength to resist them, and neither is granted them. What are we to make of this? Is God unable to help them, or unwilling, or does He not care that His laws are being broken by this individual Christian? I have known Christians who could not overcome their lust, their greed, their ambition etc and, in one case at least, were so overcome by their inability to follow God's law that they committed suicide. Should they have had more faith? But faith in what? - a salvation at the end of a life of crippling guilt and endless misery caused by their inability to live up to laws which are beyond the possibility of people to keep? What God would be so cruel? Why not tell them they need not observe the particular law they were unable to keep, because they would be saved anyway, so long as they had faith.

"a researcher asked what was the use of religion. He supplied part of the answer himself. It brings people together - all Christians are my sisters and brothers in a special way non-Christians don't share. "

And it is the same with other religions, so there is nothing special about Christianity.

Della. I confess that I first heard of 'hamartia' in this forum. I argued that it is sometimes used in it's non-archery sense as 'erring and straying' (like lost sheep?). A religious metaphor for sin itself.

Odd. I feel a very my brothers-and-sisters connection with my fellow non-christians.

Della

>>Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, that everybody is aware of having done wrong, of 'sinfulness' (defining sin as 'hamartia', missing the mark. Toxxin probably knows much more than I do about such things...)
I don't think anyone is ever so self satisfied that she believes she has *never* hurt anyone (even their feelings), told an untruth etc.<<

The fact that we have done things that we know to be wrong does not imply a need for external salvation. It implies a need to make right the wrong that has been done. In heathenry, we make right the wrongs we have done, and make recompense for that which we cannot put right.

Your need for external salvation is completely alien to my way of thinking, and in fact, is somewhat repellent (sorry ). To me, it implies that Christians do not feel the need to take personal responsibilty for their actions.

My gods are not triple-o deities. To you, that devalues them. To me, it makes them more worthy of my respect and devotion. They are dealing with their wyrd, as I am dealing with mine. And when my thread is finally woven into the fabric in this part of the worlds, I will move on and help it weave itself into the rest of the pattern, with my gods and my ancestors, in another part of the worlds. Whether I have made my part of the fabric beautiful is my problem in these days, not something that I can leave to my gods. Though they help me and guide the needle . I have little - if any - control of the thread that is spun for me. But what I weave is the sum of my choices. There is absolutely no place in this for external salvation. Please try to understand this, as I am trying to understand the way you happily leave your life choices in the hand of your god. (Which, BTW, is fine by me - as long as your life is led in a way which leaves the world better rather than worse, I am joyous that you have found a path that suits you so well.)

>>That's what I meant by aware of their need to be saved - from their sinful nature!<<

I don't recognise the idea of a sinful nature (even putting aside the definition of the word 'sin'). And even if I did, the idea of salvation does not follow.

Jez - heathen and witch.

> your first post to me as Malacylpse was aggresssive

Hmm, three 's'es (how do you write the plural of 's'?), a Gollum-esque verb... and 'Malacylpse' - another typo? is this a sign of tension?

> But consider yourself forgiven, if you wish to be.

OK, if it makes you feel better

My original response to your new nickname was not intended particularly agressively - you took a liberty with the nickname, so I upped the ante to see how you'd respond... I dunno - perhaps there was some irritation there - it's hard to tell, introspection is a complex and subtle affair... anyhow, it wouldn't have lasted long, if at all.

> Isn't there a quote from some mathematical source somewhere that
> runs along the lines that thirty people are a good proportional
> representation of any society in a survey, no matter how big? The
> class is about that big.

It does sound vaguely familiar... Thirty people chosen at random may be an acceptably representative sample, but 30 philosophy students? Whatever...

> That was the question, right?

Sounds like the sort of thing...

> But if the computer merely made an atom-for-atom copy, it might
> miss out intangibles

These putative intangibles are what I'm trying to pin down (I have some special pins at the ready).

> I withold (...) judgement on this point for the same reasons that
> I am an agnostic, not an atheist

Understood - I sometimes like to think that's my position too...

> Certainly if we did have a soul, then I should think that only one
> could be the original;

Any particular reason why?
Would the duplicate have a 'new' soul, or none at all?

> if you were basing your individuality on the physical body, then
> still only one could be the original, because the copy would
> clearly be in a different region of space, and, commencing time
> again, would have different experiences.

Well yes, in a very specific sense, an objective record would show which was the original and which the copy by showing the objective history of each, but by the terms of the experiment we know that one is the original and one is a copy - the question is whether there is any other difference that could lead us to say that only one is the *same person* as the original, and is this difference significant (i.e. more than, for example, a spatial displacement, which wouldn't invalidate a single person).

I am not really quite sure what you mean, Oetzi... Judging by your comments on other threads, if we are 'kindred... spirit(s)' it's only in part! (PS, I am not *really* 26 kg..)

Hello, Heathen, thanks for your answer to me. There are some things I'd like to answer you on...
Yes, I meant Hans Kung (can't do an umlaut here on this keyboard. I read an article in a book he wrote, about Augustine and 'original sin'. I'll give the details of the book when I can dig them up. for not having it to hand!)
>>As you are aware, hamartia is a metaphore and does not mean 'sin', though it came to mean that in the ekklesia, through Paul's usage. But Paul was a pharisee and already had a deeply embedded sense of the law and his inability to meet its demands, so he was very much filled with a sense of having missed tha mark in terms of what his God wished from him, and so created the new, Christian, use for the word. <<
Oh, I know it's a metaphor, and I think it is a good one. Many people seriously dislike Paul, even loathe him, but I simply can't see it myself. Much of what he wrote is just *wonderful*!
>>But Chrisitanity does not necessarily actually help people live up to their ethical standards,<<
My experience has been that it does help, even if only by reminding me to hold my tongue when I have been going to say something horrible to my child, for instance...But it's been more help than that, on occasion.
>>But this does not seriously address the problem of those Christians who, try as hard as they can, spend their lives always 'missing the mark'. They pray for release from their desires (or whatever) or the strength to resist them, and neither is granted them. What are we to make of this? Is God unable to help them, or unwilling, or does He not care that His laws are being broken by this individual Christian? I have known Christians who could not overcome their lust, their greed, their ambition etc and, in one case at least, were so overcome by their inability to follow God's law that they committed suicide. Should they have had more faith? But faith in what? - a salvation at the end of a life of crippling guilt and endless misery caused by their inability to live up to laws which are beyond the possibility of people to keep? What God would be so cruel? Why not tell them they need not observe the particular law they were unable to keep, because they would be saved anyway, so long as they had faith.<<
I feel very much for people who have had the experience you mention. I have had an on-going experience like this, with smoking and another thing. My experience with these has been - regarding smoking - I *dont*
really want to quit! (It took me a while to realise this, but the way I see it, God wasn't going to help me if I wasn't sincere.) Regarding the other thing, I persist. You'll be aware of Paul's comment about the "thorn in his flesh"... that's been thought to be everything from an illness to a besetting sin!
Regarding other religions bringing people together, well, you're perfectly right!

Higgs

A superficially interesting idea - it implies that not only do we all(subconsiously) create and modify the universe through will power alone, but the matter of the universe we create can create and modify us and itself... everything can change and create anything and everything. Which begs the question why the universe is so stubbornly regular and predictable that we have derived laws - such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics - that codify this consistency. Why is it that when everything can create and change everything else, that the universe *appears* to behave in a far from malleable, variable way?


*Appears to behave * is the clue. What something appears to be. Obviously if will is affecting consciousness to create, it creates assumed stabilty.

I Also said will was the energy.

2.If will can affect or create matter, this suggests it is a physical force. Why is there no trace of it, and no obvious place for it, in our physics?

Physics does not apply itself to the invisible, such as consciousness is or content of brain activity however Quantum physics is within this area and it has been discovered that an experiment can have various outcomes dependent upon the the researchers expectations. We haven't got there yet.

If I believe I can, then I can? But if nothing happens, you say I don't really believe. Where have I heard this argument before...

Of course you have heard this argument in religions...


A rabbit hole is a hole dug by a rabbit... nope, you've lost me.

Aha, so now we can see that you function more literaly than I do and this may be why we have misunderstanding.

If I say that such a discussion neccessitates 'going down the rabbit hole' is it clearer? Does anyone understand this phrase and why do they understand it ?

I had a discussion over the weekend with an unhappy Catholic woman.

she had read out part of a novel she was working on (she's a published author) in the novel she had the children attending a catholic school and it appeared that the schools teaching was creating a divide between them and their mother. I asked why would any parent do that, send their children to a school which created divisions between parent and child?
I said that from my experience Catholicism was a guilt driven religion.
'Ah' she replied 'but it also provides absolution.'

What amazed me was that this fairly intelligent woman could not see that the religion was saying. "You are guilty of the sins we give you and only we have the remedy."
A bit of a catch 22. A bit like a supermarket loyalty card. You shop here and we give you points.
which brings me to;

"I am a Christian because we are offered salvation"
Salvation from the sins the church has told you you own? Unless an organisation can convince a person that they are sinners, what point their offer of salvation? We if don't know we sin, we don't require salvation?

az

Hi Della

"any people seriously dislike Paul, even loathe him, but I simply can't see it myself. Much of what he wrote is just *wonderful*!"

there are many things I could say to this, having once been a Bible Study teacher (not the kind attached to a Sunday School!) but they would (a) bore everyone else and (b) bore me, so I'll not go down that path.

"My experience has been that it does help, even if only by reminding me to hold my tongue"

I don't feel the need for that kind of help to hold me to what I think is the right thing to do. I either manage or I don't. There is no essential difference between the way I manage now and the way I managed when I was a Christian, even though I was a devout Christian at one time (for many years). I find that people have the strength within themselves. When I was a Christian I chose, in effect, to project the source of that strength on to my god. I no longer feel this need. partly because a particular strength I asked for, over many years, was ultimately denied to me anyway. And that particular request mattered (I thought) much more than the small things such as hlding my tongue. So, as I said in my last post, I came to the unwilling (then) conclusion that either God couldn't help, or didn't wish to help, or it didn't matter. Not really. I do not find this a problem, as I am happy with my gods.

"It took me a while to realise this, but the way I see it, God wasn't going to help me if I wasn't sincere."

But I was, you see.

"Regarding the other thing, I persist. You'll be aware of Paul's comment about the "thorn in his flesh"... that's been thought to be everything from an illness to a besetting sin!"

And Paul and I came to different conclusions.

Heathen Sceptic

Yes when we attribute something outside of us with strengths we forget we have our own.

The strength and will to change something disagreeable lies within us and is not a god granted wish..unless you believe as I do that god resides *only* within and when you 'pray' for change really you are asking yourself for change.

Thanks for the return Della. Yes I see what you mean. May I suggest, since we are not within scenting range, that we both adopt the English text to communicate.

I respect your assets Della, all of us in this pack do, but we are disturbed that you wish to adopt that arched stance. You know..(hankies out) all three of us are males, I am past the menopause and my beta lead has been castrated. That leaves a 24kg dachshund, only 18 months old, so you see Della you have the upper hand.

I know there is no mercy in the natural world, but H2G2 ain't natural is it!

hi Moth,

<>

*shoots hand up in air*

Me! Me! Pick me!

Ummm, reference to Alice in Wonderland? Needing to look at things from another perspective?

az

Az

I pick you .
Yes, that is the answer, and the reason why you understand the meaning of a seemingly incongruent statement is that we both have shared experience of Alice.

> Obviously if will is affecting consciousness to create, it creates
> assumed stabilty.

OK, I see. Whatever the question or puzzle about the universe, you can say "Will does it". End of story...

> Physics does not apply itself to the invisible, such as
> consciousness is or content of brain activity

I don't entirely agree. The study of brain activity and consciousness in physical terms is progressing rapidly. [Or does it just appear to be progressing because we believe it is? - but then if we believe it is, it really is, because we make it so, etc.]

> Quantum physics is within this area and it has been discovered that
> an experiment can have various outcomes dependent upon the the
> researchers expectations

There are two issues there - any poorly controlled experiment can have an outcome that is biased according to the researcher's expectations, this is why double-blind controls were developed. In quantum physics, the results of some experiments may vary depending on how the measurement is performed, i.e. the experimental setup may determine which outcome is observed. This counter-intuitive result is demonstrable, repeatable and now pretty well understood, and it is not a question of the experimenter's expectations.

> Of course you have heard this argument in religions...

Ah, yes...

> so now we can see that you function more literaly than I do

I do function very literally when I'm trying to pick my logical way through a philosophical minefield to get to the heart of an unfamiliar worldview - it helps in avoiding misunderstandings, and shortens the route.

> If I say that such a discussion neccessitates 'going down the
> rabbit hole' is it clearer?

Not really, there are a number of things that come to mind: rabbit hunting with dogs and/or ferrets, where foxes bolt when chased, that album of popular children's songs ("Rockin' in the Rabbit Hole"), chapter 1 of Dodgson's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" (believing six impossible things before breakfast?), etc.

I suspect it's a reference to AAIW, but unless you're suggesting our perceived reality is all a dream, I don't know. Perhaps you could explain?

> this may be why we have misunderstanding.

I don't feel I have enough information to make a decent stab at misunderstanding yet...

I've been away from hootoo being creative. Have a look at http://www.sitepalace.com/alji/

I love filling free space on the web.

Alji

az sorry about the A

The other thing about the reason we have to view things from a different perspective 'down the rabbit hole' is because down that particular hole the rules above ground do not apply

Higgs

"OK, I see. Whatever the question or puzzle about the universe, you can say "Will does it". End of story..."

Well of course I can although end of story might be a bit binding.
you can also go for god says so or it is written in the bible if you prefer. or even science in it's state of continual growth for knowledge says this is so to day. end of story.

Yes physics is applying itself to the conumdrums , as I said it was through quantums. still a long way to go though. It hasn't got the complete answers either.
No I think the outcome of experimentation in this cause is more than faulty proceedure.

If you haven't enough misunderstanding to make a stab at it you are doing very well even so.

Alice; see former reply.