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

>>I have to shoot off now.

I am going to assume that you meant 'I am required to depart now', rather than other ways in which this sentence could possibly be construed. Please, let me be right ;o)

To be honest, I think that, yes, it is not so much to do with someone's religion whether they are a good or bad, but on their upbringing, mental state etc. But, I don't think that religions help, and often religions directly lead to violence between different factions, and this is wrong. People who would normally never get involved in violence would do so in the name of 'their lord'.

Just in case anyone should still need convincing, this story appeared on BBC News *TODAY*:

Nigerian troops have been deployed in the northern city of Kaduna to help police restore order after riots flared over the introduction of Islamic Sharia law.
At least 25 people have been killed in the unrest between Christians and Muslims, in what is the most serious threat to the nation's unity since the end of military rule last May.
(Full Story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_652000/652419.stm)

It is still going on, it is tearing the world apart, and it is high time that it was stopped.

"I told you i'd shoot. You didn't believe me. *WHY* didn't you believe me"

Hi Hon. Missed you again. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

I find the typical fault in most (western) religions is the drive towards assimilation of other cultures, religions, and peoples. The main purpose of this is most likely to achieve unity through a common belief structure. This may have been a sound theory in ancient times, but I really don't think it's viable now.

So let's just promote non-secularism and be done with it.

What I really hate about christianity is the 'we're right you're wrong and that's the only way it is' attitude. Some people give money to missionaries instead of real charities solely to convert other people around the world (sure they do other stuff but thats the main point), and what right do they have? They're destroying native cultures! How do they no they're right? How would we like some Muslim/Hindu/Shinto bloke coming round Britain telling everyone what to do?

Now in MY way of doing things (see above) we wouldn't have any of that would we? Oh how you wish you'd listened...

**As to what I'd want in the world? Call me selfish, but I want a hunk of money, a fast car and a big house. Oh and maybe peace if you insist. But he'd better sit in the corner, and not make any noise or he's out**

Ok Selfish...
I have to agree with you on the whole missionary thing. They served their purpose in the past, let's be done with them.

I could just go for some relative quiet & not having to worry about which group of right-wing religious fanatics are going to try to kill or convert me for my "sins against God". I don't think I've done anything that wrong.

They served their purpose in the past? What purpose was that? Missionaries throughout history, from those teaching the Mexican Indians, to those in China, the Phillipines, and Hawaii, have been credited with spreading education, but they've also been responsible for spreading plagues. Meanwhile, they try to force cultures to forget their languages, their myths, their very identities. No wonder all those cultures hate white people. How'd you like to be forced to speak Farsi and converted to Islam, wearing black pajamas all day covering your whole body in the worst heat?

As for peace, it is hardly a uniquely Christian concept. All people want basically the same things, and it's not necessary to deify some dude who got nailed to a T shaped wooden structure to realize that peace would probably be a pretty good thing.

Beg your pardon. I said missionaries served their purpose in the past. I didn't say it was a good or proper purpose; typically it was the purpose of the Catholic Church, notorious for subverting 'heathen, savage' cultures and making them 'civilized'. I'm not agreeing with what missionaries did, nor am I condoning it. I'm only saying it's done, and there isn't much we can do about it, except to make sure that it never happens again.

-jb

Shoot em! No, seriously, I feel really guilty for giving money at church for foreign missions. Not that it was a lot, I was about 12 when I stopped going to church, but as they say, 'every little bit helps'. I don't think that there's anything wrong with witnessing on a person to person basis. If you really believe that you know the only way to eternal happiness, it's natural to want ot share it with others. But, it is so wrong to go somewhere with already established belief systems and make them support yours. (Has anyone seen the Starvin-Marvin in Space episode of South Park? It's relevent to this aspect of this conversation. 'No Marvin, in God's language, english.')

I think that Jesus could be the son of God. Hindus believe that he was an incarnation of Vishnu, just like Krishna. While I think that Jesus could be divine, I do agree that the bible is a book written by man. Every religious tome was written by man. I've taken a lot of my spiritual beliefs from the writings of Neil Gaiman. (Someone please list some titles of {Terry?} Pratchett books, I'm very interested in reading his stuff after reading all this, maybe I should start with Good Omens, eh?) But not only from books, stand up comics as well, George Carlin in particular. And many other resources, if I see/hear/read something that strikes a chord in my heart I believe it. All that matters is that it is true for me.

GB- I thought this might interest you. Thomas Jefferson made his own bible by cutting out everything supernatural and was left with just the moral teachings of Jesus. I think you can buy it, I've been meaning to myself. I heard about it from the head of the Oklahoma chapter of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State. I would encourage all of the Americans here to join or at least check out their magazine. It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or not, it's just about keeping religion out of politics, and that is a must if we're going to end wars in the name of god.

Maybe - and only maybe - that's where we are going wrong. Maybe we shouldn't be trying to separate religion and politics, maybe we should be trying to integrate them together in the correct fashion, and I think it's the last four words that make all the difference.

We all know, and are probably fed up of rehashing, how the Roman Catholic Church tried and failed miserably to be a political force in its own way during the last 2000 years. It was headed by a bunch of crooks - sorry, should I use the word Pope? - who each had their own agenda. Result? A proper motley crew who could not organise a fart in a baked bean factory, let alone effectively rule a continent.

But had they not managed to remove the Templars - an organisation who, for a time at least, did appear to combine politics and religion effectively - where would Europe be now? Whilst I do not doubt that they too had their own agendas, I feel that theirs would have been more palatable to a civilised world. I think that they were planning to restore the real Royal family back to the throne, and that their plans also included a United States of Europe-type set-up behind the one figurehead. And somewhere out there, I think there are decendants of the Templars who still think that that is the way to go.

And who is to say whether they are right or wrong? Whilst I am absolutely opposed to the idea of a royal family with absolute power, I can also understand their use as a figurehead, as an icon. Use the Pharoah as an example if you like. At times, Pharoah was all Egypt, and all Egypt was the Pharoah.

I think Schwaller de Lubicz got it about right. I think when he says' "Ancient Egypt did not have 'religion' as such; it WAS religion in its entirety, in the broadest and purest acceptance of the term", he has hit the nail on the head. If religion is to work, it has to be a collective thing; the whole population needs to believe, unfalteringly. Religion needs to be all things; politics, law, science, recreation, and so on. All these things need to be religious in nature. Unthinking dogma is not religion; you may as well recite recipes for duck a l'orange instead of the Lords prayer, and take communion with Castrol GTX and pomegranite seeds. I think the ancient Egyptians had, for a time, a truly collective, unified population, who were capable of thinking and acting almost like one person - sort of 'The Midwich Cuckoos' but without the sinister overtones. I think that's how the Pyramids and such were built.

The problem is in uniting the population behind a figurehead, even if the figurehead is literally that, Zaphod Beeblebrox appearing to rule when in fact he has less power than a Fiat 126. It's not important; it's the unity that's important, just as the Egyptians were unified behind the Pharoah. Maybe the descendants of the Templars have the right idea, and perhaps the secret that it has been supposed that the Templars hoarded, to reveal when the conditions were correct, was the identity of just such a figurehead. For me, only one lineage can provide that person.

I don't think that that can ever happen again. Society needs to make a fresh start, but more importantly it needs to forget most of the things it knows now.

Grey: Interesting stuff...I wonder, is there anything on those people on the web? For my part, I will provide you with a link I am sure you will find entertaining, and there may yet be a chair in the attic for you: http://www.h2g2.com/A254314

CD4: I personally don't think we've EVER managed to get a decent amount of seperation of church and state. Shortly after the creation of the first wholly secular state, the "One Nation, Under God" movement came along and ruined it. Since then we've fought off everyone from Puritans and Quakers to the Religious Right and Heaven's Gate. I also don't think the church and state thing can ever work, because first, you'd have to settle on a single religion. And the sudden appearance of the descendant of Jesus is not going to do that, I'm sorry to say. It'll just create more chaos than already exists, although it'll be a positive step toward secularism. As for the conclusions of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, I think the whole thing is the result of some Masonic joke. At any rate, too many people have become accustomed to self rule to bow to any king, and 'divine right' has gone the way of the mastodon, and no cloning sciences exist to ressurect it.

My take on the whole thing is, the sooner we stop picking on each other for being born different shades, or on different sections of the map, and put aside all this foolishness of gods and afterlife and stuff, the sooner we'll be able to focus on the things that promote this life, which is the only one we're guaranteed.

Here's the address for Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State.

http://www.au.org

Hey there!

You should not lisen too that message about him existing and you believing etc because there are many other Religions. If you became a Christian and then it was discovered that the Hindu Religion was correct then all the Hindu gods would be angry with you for being a Christian.

Try Not believing in God, then you can be clean and then join the right side later. Good?

Or try and make up your own religion... Just a thought here are some starters (I made them up for a laugh):

Bobtheism - Bobtheists believe the world was created by a giant cat called Bob, he rested for 6 days on a cusion and then worked on the 7th.

Analtheism - Analems believe the world is a giant bottom, the equator is it's crevis, earthqukes are farts and lava is diarogue (can't spell)


Hey Hey

Visit my Homepage

See ya

From Steve