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

>

Bravo, Twophlag! You hit the nail directly on the head! Not only is it 'nonsense', but quite dangerous as well. (Oh, and, 'says who' P-C, 'SAYS ME'!) So: How does one reconcile the OT with the NT? Dunno, don't care. How does one reconcile the Medean Koran with the Meccan? Dunno, don't care. Those are tasks for the religionists, if they're able (which I highly doubt). This is the way I see Judeo-Christianity-Islam:

Many, many years ago:

Rabbi: God said "blah-blah-blah"
Multitude: Wow!

Some years later:

Different Rabbi: God said "contradictory blah-blah-blah"
Individual: How do reconcile that with 'blah-blah-blah'?
DR: In this way: yatta-yatta-yatta
Indiv: But that makes no sense!
DR: Kill him!
Indiv: It's a fair cop
Multitude: Okay
(Individual's killed)

Some more years later:

Priest: The Lord said "whacketty-whacketty" and it means "buggetty-buggettty"
'nother Individual: But how does one reconcile that with 'yatta-yatta-yatta'?
P: In this way: zatta-zatta-zatta
'I: But that makes no sense!
P: Kill him!
'I: Not much of a fair cop!
Multitude: Tough luck, Chuck
('nother individual's killed)


And even somewhat more years:

Imam: Allah said "zippitty-doo-dah" and it means "zippitty-day"
Some-Salman: I think I'll playfully unreconcile zippitty-day with zatta-zatta-zatta in prose.
Imam: A Fatwah on his head!
S-S: I'd better hide!!!
Multitude: God is Great!
(S-S goes into hiding . . . )

There's your loving god, tolerance, mercy, charity, faith, etc.

You say it *is* nonsense, then you say "SAYS ME", indicating (accurately! ) that what you say is merely your opinion. If I say "it is not nonsense", and this is *my* opinion, where are we then?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The problem is there are too many people who are concerned with The Truth, but entirely unconcerned with the truth.

Noggin

Absolutely! And, what the theists want is for us atheists to pretend that theism/atheism are equivalent, when they are not. Thousands and thousands of years have passed and theists have *yet* to prove their case, namely that some sort of god or gods exist or existed. Firstly, they would have to define their spooks; secondly, they would have to offer *some* proof that these things existed or exist. The following is a little dramatization for your amusement:

Theist: I have seen a Splindor and it Malkeeps!
Atheist: Define 'Splindor', please.
T: It's a zooberunder that you can't see.
A: What's a zooberunder and why should I just blindly believe?
T: Well, you just have to have faith!
A: So, in other words, you can't even define this thing, let alone prove its existence . . .
T: And you can't prove that it doesn't exist!
A: That's a logical impossibility - - - it's not up to me to prove the non-zooberunder-ness of reality; let her who posits bring some proof, else keep her tongue. (And, by the way, proof isn't the same as certainty.)

I mean, if the theists could even bring *anything* to the table, it would be a first!

Sigh. PatternChaser, it helps to know the context of the alleged serious death threat, and the real history. Still, if you want to react as you did, and take off for 'fear' of me, that's your right.

Member and azahar, have, with half-truths and ignoring the history and context, driven me away from yet another thread. Pity. I thought we were having an interesting and constructive discussion here. It would appear however, that they have instant credibility that I, as a Christian don't have - presumption of innocence until guilt is proven doesn't apply to Christians...

Della,

Please don't start with 'poor little me' because you did something you (should) feel badly about and it has come to light. Trying to get people to feel sorry for you and blaming myself and Member for driving you away from 'yet another thread' and pulling the old 'Chrisitan persecution' excuse <> is actually what will stop this debate from being 'interesting and constructive'.

<>

Good grief, Della. You wrote it. People saw it. How are you 'not guilty'? But that is beside the point. And please recall when Member brought this up on another thread I told him more than once that I felt that information was not relevant for that particular thread. But here I can see his point for bringing it up.

The point of my question to you was to find out what being a Christian means not only in beliefs but also in actions. If a Christian is meant to follow the Golden Rule then surely they would at least think twice before saying something in anger (for example).

At least I would expect someone who said they were a *real* Christian (and I am not singling you out here, I'm speaking of Christians in general) that this should somehow also be clear from the sort of life they lead and by their actions. Surely one who serves God and Jesus would be setting an example for others to follow? Or, as I suspect, is being a Christian (for many) simply paying lip service to an organization that offers them perpetual forgiveness and everlasting life?

I ask this question because I have not noticed the morals of Christians to be any more exemplary than those, say, of atheists. Why should this be if Christians are receiving the Truth and the Word of God in order to help them live as good Christians?


az

Fear? You misunderstand. I didn't (and don't) want to waste my time with someone who has so little control of their anger, and so little mastery of debate, that they end up making death threats, for whatever reason.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"The problem is there are too many people who are concerned with The Truth, but entirely unconcerned with the truth." - Noggin

We'll just leave that there until they come to collect it, and take it off to the Hall of Quotes to be mounted and displayed.



And they can't, of course. Such matters are not open to objective proof or disproof, as I'm sure you know, Chantel. To make your argument more universally applicable, we should ask people to prove the existence or validity of their own belief system (as even atheists have a belief system).

So, Chantel, prove the validity of your chosen belief system (science, based on Aristotelian binary logic, perhaps?), if you will?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Death-threat Della wrote:

"Member and azahar, have, with half-truths and ignoring the history and context, driven me away from yet another thread."

I have done no such thing.

For instance, please indicate where I have used a "half-truth". You're accusing me of lying, Death-threat, which is rich coming from you.

"Pity."

Well, that's a matter of opinion...

"I thought we were having an interesting and constructive discussion here."

We are. And I've asked you an on-topic, straightforward question about your system of morality. If you don't want to answer, at least have the guts and honesty to say so rather than coming on with this "poor little me" act, because it's fooling nobody except possibly yourself and your idiot family.

"It would appear however, that they have instant credibility that I, as a Christian don't have"

No, I don't. I have carefully cultivated credibility built up over more than a year and a half of telling the truth, perhaps somewhat abrasively, and on the rare occasions that I'm wrong admitting it immediately and apologising. That is a credibility that you, a proven liar, user of racist abuse and issuer of death threats don't have. Christianity has NOTHING to do with your lack of credibility. To paraphrase Bill Clinton - it's the LYING, stupid.

"presumption of innocence until guilt is proven doesn't apply to Christians... "

Dearest darling Death-threat Della - your guilt HAS been proven! Are you now trying to pretend you *didn't* threaten blickybadger with death, and reiterate to him that you were not joking and that the threat was serious?

Now... are you going to answer the question I've asked, or are you really not interested in having an interesting and constructive discussion?

Member, you aren't going to get a reasonable or reasoned answer from someone whom you are baiting like that. You're just capitalising on Della's wrongdoing, and pretending to pursue a rational debate, while you mock her.

Della's destroyed her own credibility; your efforts only make her seem better. Leave her in her own mire.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Mire, PatternChaser? Charmed, I am sure. Past events have shown me that responding to azahar or Member leads only to the kind of trouble I would not wish on anyone. I have had to unsubscribe all over the place because of his following me (admittedly, he was *here* before I was, that's an exception). (An example, is a thread about Guantanamo Bay, which I really missed being able to take part in...)
The 'death threat' was uttered on my account yes, but not by me. My son was upset at Member and BB and their constant taunting and harassment, and when something happened we thought BB was responsible for, we reacted in haste, yes, and with a great deal of upset, which you might understand if you knew the background.
We've acknowledged the error and apologised elsewhere. Of course I have not, and never will do any killing of anyone, literal, or metaphorical. I am consistent in my opposition to violence, and have been involved in anit-war and anti-death penalty groups in RL. So, there are your "Christian morals" for a start...
Now Member has named me 'Death Threat' (very mature) and stated elsewhere his intent to call me that 'until (she) dies', I am even less inclined to 'debate' him!

Here is where he expressed that intention. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1675436?thread=407916 "Equally, I can choose to call her "Death-threat Della" till the day she dies."

"The 'death threat' was uttered on my account yes, but not by me."

Hmm. Still not quite getting that whole "personal responsibility" thing, are we, dear? Your account - your responsibility.

In any case, your violent son has an account of his own here - "Math Wizard". Is he too fragile or inarticulate to write down his own death threats without Mommy's help? He's only seventeen, I suppose...

"We've acknowledged the error and apologised elsewhere"

Public death threat, private, hidden and obscure apology (assuming you have made an apology - I'm sure you'll understand that given that you're a known liar, I don't believe it unless I *see* it). How unsurprising.

Less inclined to debate him Please check out Dellas half hearted apology to me on the link below. Where she says sorry but also manages to say that thing I didnt do and have never done anything like is the kind of thing I would do. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F71014?thread=389795&latest=1#p5177198 If you read the two posts directly below you will also know that she spends more time popping off shots at Member and az than she does on her "apology" Wonder why she cant get along with people? one love

Personal vendettas don't belong here in the FFFF, IMO. This is where we discuss trivial matters such as God, the Universe and Everything.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yes I am like a dog with a bone. Guilty as charged.

Someone else reminds me off a dog too, because she often barks up the completely wrong tree, then whimpers and whines when she gets told off for spreading doodoo all over the gaff.

one love

"This is where we discuss trivial matters such as God, the Universe and Everything"

Absolutely. So... back to the topic.

(How) is it possible to square the Christian value of "love thy neighbour" with making "serious", reiterated death threats against another human being?

I repeat, this is a serious, ontopic question. I don't see how anyone who calls themself a Christian, regardless of denomination, can EVER do such a thing. I'd be interested to know any possible Biblical (preferably NT) justifications for such behaviour.

<(How) is it possible to square the Christian value of "love thy neighbour"...>

Oh stop it, Member. Enough is enough.



You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it won't be true in the sense you mean it. Everyone knows that conduct such as you describe is not 'christian', so the answer to your 'on-topic' question is known in advance to all. That you keep asking it, given that its answer is known to all, shows that it is not intended as a serious question, but as a continuing jibe at Della.

Please stop.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Chantel

If you read it in the original gibbonish it's a "Sprindor", not a "Splindor". A common mistake amongst heretics like you, may your giblets be placed upon the Tree of Woah!

Seriously though let's look at:
"Thousands and thousands of years have passed and theists have *yet* to prove their case, namely that some sort of god or gods exist or existed. Firstly, they would have to define their spooks; secondly, they would have to offer *some* proof that these things existed or exist."

I could conversely argue that you atheists have yet to prove that gods do not exist. The consensus on this planet, at this time, is that they do in some form or another. But I am above such simplsitic semantic bantering.

As with many atheists on the God thread you come at this question solely from the grounding of your social context. Specifically the abrahamic-religion dominated West.

These three lovely little middle-eastern death-sults depend entirely upon the interpretative nature of priesthood for their divine experience. A system that keeps social control firmly in the hands of those that control the priests.

If you look beyond these towards the East and to the native religions of these isles you will find a completely different approach. No faith is required as people are encouraged to explore their own experience of and connection to the divine spirit of being in whatever form their minds can cope with. No dogma, just shared wisdom on the road ahead.

Talk to The Original Jez, Heathen Sceptic or myself and you will find representatives of both the Heathen and Druidic traditions who look on 'faith' as an expletive. An excuse used by abrahamic priests when their outdated dogma is picked apart by the bright minds of the young.

We have met and worked with spirits of place, our ancestors and wights. We have conversed with and listened at the feet of our gods. We need no faith, dogma or irrational belief system to support our experience.

I, for one, recognise that I am either blessed or mad. Until you atheists can prove that I am wrong in my experiences I will tend to favour the former. I am quite happy for you to believe the latter, but to be fair, I suggest that you examine the foundations of that belief in my madness in the face of the evidence of my sanity that I have offered up by my contributions to h2g2 over the last couple of years

I look forward to your reply.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I am as a child amongst giants.