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

*swears like a sailor*

i am really becoming irritated with this. they took a link off my user page that linked to a site that my friends run... it's all about life and politics where we can rant uncensored... and those moderators took off the link!!! argh!!!

Well, it didn't take very long for this conversation to become acidic, did it? I'd like to hope that those postings that are awaiting moderation weren't complained about simply because someone got overly emotional. Ben opened this conversation with a very open-minded, objective tone, and I'd like to return to that.

I'd like to answer Ben's original question, but first let me tell you that my answer comes from my perspective as a Christian turned atheist. It's my observation that Christians aren't terribly interested in asking questions in the first place, so they find solace in a ready-made, pre-packaged cosmology. It *does* provide answers, but it is my view that, taken as a whole, the Bible offers some rather awful ones.

That Matthew quote is one example... the one dealing with the children. I turn to that reference often in theological debates, because it debunks one of the most common myths about Christianity. I can point out tons of awful stories with abysmal moral lessons in the Old Testament, and the Christians say "But Jesus overturned the Old Testament." They argue that he replaced the old covenant with a new one, and that all of the old laws have been replaced.

In that passage of Matthew (and Mark), Jesus repudiates the Pharisees for ignoring the old laws, citing the rule about disrespectful children (the age is an unimportant argument) as a specific example. If Jesus intended to revoke all of the old laws, then why did he call the Pharisees to task? He didn't. Jesus intended to uphold the old laws. He therefore left the OT in place, and supported all of its awful laws and poor morality.

For the counter-argument, I have been told that there is a passage where Jesus says specifically that he is overturning the old laws. Unfortunately, nobody has yet been able to point this passage out to me, but perhaps someone in this thread can.

I'd also be curious to know what translation of the Bible you used to provide that quote, Miss Ben. I noticed that it had deliberately softened the tone of the discussion, which leads me to suspect it is NIV. Some of the more recent translations have been deliberately edited to send the message the church wants you to hear, rather than being true to the documents, and that is one of them. And if I recall correctly, the NIV used the KJV as a source, as opposed to the oldest available documents. The KJV wasn't a particularly good translation itself.

(regarding moderation)

argh! but that's not it!!! the first removed post was mine.

look, i'm the FIRST person to admit that i can get overly emotional at times, and snap at people.

but i didn't do that in that post!!!

all i did was state my views. i didn't even blasphemize!!! i simply stated the reasons for which catholicism didn't work for me.... i didn't swear, i didn't say that christians were deluded, i didn't call them idiots.... what's the problem?!?!?!

*frustrated*

Just rooted out my 'Heretic's Guide To The Bible', which points out inconsistencies, contradictions and less than harmonious offerings within the bible, and I was wondering if anyone who takes this tome literally can explain why such things exist therein? I present a few contradiction examples (unless copyright is a problem!) taking into account different wordings for different versions of the book;

1a* "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" - John 3:13

1b* "... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" - 2 Kings 2:11


2a* "If I bear witness to myself, my witness is not true" - John 5:31

2b* "I bear witness to myself..." - John 8:18


3a* "...for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever" - Jeremiah 3:12

3b* "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever" - Jeremiah 17:4

Ok....... this has scope to REALLY p**s me off

I asked a question about what quesions are answered by Christianity

I got a couple of flames and some good answers in the forum, and some very good ones direct to [email protected]

And some good suggested reading material. (Six quid pro quo, Xanatic, I'll get the Lyall Watson book in my lunch hour tomorrow).

And now it seems that it is ok to offend me in my profound beleif in the individual's right to express themselves

But it is too scary for H2G2 to publish postings that *might* offend a Christian, Buddhist, or Athiest or two....

So what metric is used here to say that it is *unnaceptable* of offend on the basis of religion but that it is *acceptable* to censor?

I am so Aupset about this censorship that I have just donated 25quid to Amnesty, lest the BBC forget that the road that starts with "moderators" ends with people in jail for saying simple truths.

This post has been removed.

If anyone would like to email me with comments or postings please do so. Say if you want me to keep them to myself or forward them on to other people.

If you have subscribed to this thread and want to see postings emailed to me, please email me your address.

Sadly, so sadly,

A Girl Called Ben

For your information - the posting which was removed contained the link to Amnesty.... 'Nuff said, I think...? Actually it contravened the rule that there should be no links in posings... I do dearly love an Irony

You can find the link on my home page.

*sea rolls her eyes*

maybe we should all complain about the moderation. it's getting out of hand. i've had a post removed, and my user page edited twice. i'm sick of being stifled!

[repost of squacked message, number 38]

It's not been censored - just the squack who read it was unsure how to proceed, so they referred it to Peta/Abi. Just wait till Monday, and I'm sure it'll be reinstated...

The moderators are still learning their trade - so there are going to be a few hiccups as they get to grips with what this site does and doesn't allow. 'Blasphemy' is sadly illegal in the UK, so I can understand there being caution..

looks like sea's life story is back - so you can go back and reread it. Still don't know what the squack found to be offended by - perhaps (s)he thought that wicca was devil worship or something? (sigh)

Reading Sea's story (which I can relate to, btw, tho' wicca doesn't do it for me) just goes to prove the madness rampant here.

Who the h*ll are these guys to say that a Christian's religious sensibilities are more important than my belief in free speech? People are being tortured and killed for both... I just don't get it.

Incidentally, I believe passionately in everyone's right to go to hell in their own way - or heaven if they are so inclined - so I don't flame anyone for their religious (or scientific) beliefs. In other words I practice what I preach on this one.

Just WHY are religious beliefs more delicate than my belief in freedom of speech?

Xanatic - I tried buying the Lyall Watson, but it isn't flacour of the month in Waterstones just now... I will get it tho'

agcB

Squacks are human.
So they screw up occasionally.
This happened here.
The squack who referred the messages will have had it explained to them that sea's message was perfectly OK, so they'll know for next time.

There's no rampant madness: just humans being, well, human...

As h2g2 goes on, so the moderation rules will get firmed up, so this kind of weird behaviour will happen less and less. It's no fun being a guinea pig - but on the plus side, you do get your own wheel...