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

Move the forum here?

Well, billypilgrim, I kind of guessed you had a problem with authority . Don't know what my parents were thinking, trying to instill in me some sense of responsibility. One thing I think is interesting is quote I read in "The Horse and His Boy" by C.S. Lewis.
"One of the worst results of being a slave and being forced to do things is that when there is no-one to force you any more you find you have almost lost the power of forcing yourself." (I realize the fact that comparing my childhood to slavery is a tad extreme and not very accurate) Just some food for thought.

I'm setting up a link on the last forum. I'd hate to lose anyone. It appears we have a bunch of (mostly young) people doing what the media would have us believe that people (especially young people) are incapable of: Having a lenghty, intelligent discussion without using shooting, stabbing, or throwing stones at each other. Back in a few...

I believe that the best way to teach children to make decisions is to let them make their own when they are young enough that the worst consequence is a belly-ache or a messy room, so they don't need to learn when the consequences mean losing a home or a job or a spouse. Having said that, I'd be a liar if I claimed to be great at making big decisions myself. So there's something to be said for structure as well.

Perhaps I should write that response to your answer to my questions now. I get the notion that some of my postings are getting a tad on the longish side...

I suppose our overseas friends are all tucked safely into bed, as it's 4am on the other side of the pond. So it's up to us 'Mericans to hold the fort.

If you are back, I have two questions for you. One - How do I become a member of the Christians on H2G2 and Two - How do I make my page have more than one subject/heading?

Sorry, Never mind my earlier question. Like an idiot I just did not read the entire section. I apologize for any inconveniance. My first question, please do still answer. Thanx!

Ooooh, you're already a member. And Alice (my cat) welcomes you wholeheartedly.

If you've been reading along, you probably realize that we're pretty open around here (even if things get a bit heated at times. As of yet, no one's been shot....)

So welcome, welcome. Bring a friend, Christian or Whatnot, if you like. Or come alone. We take everyone. Only two rules. First, bring your mind as well as your soul. And second, we respect all opinions around here (even if we vehemently disagree with them.) Nazis and egg-throwers need not apply.

Erm, perhaps I should check with our friend Peregrin on the rules, as it was originally his forum.... Ooops. Sorry, Peregrin, if I've stepped on your toes.

I am not a member of h2g2Christians as I am not Christian. This forum as all h2g2 forums is freely accessable and I enjoy having these discussions. About Jesus' words "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" - this would not work too well for me as I am pretty pissed off with myself most of the time and if not I feel the superficialness of my happiness.
Finally, I do not believe the "Love thy neighbour" and "spread the word" should intermix. If you Love someone, you accept them for who they are and what the believe. You don't prance around preaching about salvation. So what if it is good-willed salvation. Most non-Christians hate anyone who does this. Would you like Hassidic arthodox Jews bugging you and telling you of how you are making a mistake, or Mormons surrounding you and telling you how devine their religion is? Ahhh...a fast-loading new forum...

Once again I feel I must stand up to stereotyping.
I agree with Psyduck about the preachyness factor - no-one likes being ranted at by people about their religion and being told how wrong they are.
I remember once when I went to school and we were doing a cross country (never, NEVER again!!!!), this bloke with an acoustic guitar stood on the top of a flyover and sung at us in the underpass about Jesus etc. I'm a Christian (duh) and I really didn't think this was a good idea at all. He just enforced the stereotype and made people think that all Christians are like that.
I never go around saying everone else is wrong, or that my religion is devine and their's isn't. That would be stuck up and insensitive. However, I don't agree with the 'each to their own' philosophy. It certainly IS wrong to let people 'believe what they want' if you have reason to think that they are wrong. That's why I don't mind athiests telling me there is no God etc - as long as they can back up their opinion. But, if (as they so often do) a Jehova's Witness comes to my door and gives me a load of leaflets, I will try and talk to them about my view of the Bible, and how theirs differs and how I think their view/alternative version is flawed. I don't think ANYONE should force their beliefs on anyone else.

Here, here! My father, lovely chap that he is, forces his beliefs on no one - waiting instead for them to come to him. When they do come, however, he is always willing for an open, rational discussion of faith. With this as my model, how could I do anything less. But I do have to admit that, like most of the people I know, I pretend not to be home most of the time when people come to my door to ask me if I've been saved - whatever their faith. I am saved, as far as I'm concerned. Having someone tell me that I'm not - simply because I don't believe the exact same thing as they do - strikes me as offensive and destructive, for me and them but mostly for religion in general. As long as you - or I - are happy with your faith, that's all that matters!

I agree about the pushiness. I've been on one of those door-to-door trips and I found that I didn't feel comfortable doing it and that it wasn't very effective either. Perhaps I should have explained more clearly what I meant. It should be obvious that if you love someone and believe that they are in danger and don't know it, you would want to warn them. There are very non-pushy and more effective ways to go about it than door-to-door. The thing I do most is either to broach the subject or respond when it comes up, and if the person seems disinterested or hostile, I back off. The real point is, that person knows that I'm a Christian, and if their mind ever changes they will know I'll be willing to talk about it with them.

The real truth of being a Christian is that no matter how good, or dramatic, or logical our presentation is, we still will not be able to "save" anyone. Salvation is the Lord's, and his alone.

I'm not sure what to say in this, seeing as I fall into the area somewhere between Humanism (we make our own Heaven and Hell. Right here, right now) and Taoism (go with the flow, bend like a reed, don't let others make up your mind... make up your own, whatever you decide). I want to ask a question but every religious person that I have ever asked has looked at me like I have two heads. OK, here goes.

How can organised religions justify their past actions and still condone their ideology, and have they ever apologised open heartedly for their obvious errors...? . Catholicism for advocating the burning of encyclopaedia and the treatment of Gallileo (I think they conceded he was right but was he pardoned...?)... Christians for witch hunts and crusades... Islamics for the belief that Kofur (non-believers) are not worthy of conversion... you get the idea.

I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but I get the feeling that this question will. All I want is one of two web-sites that show that such-and-such a figurehead has baulked tradition and embraced a little 21st Century thinking in their views.

Well, here we go Shawn (or can I call you wooden-head blockeyes?).
Firstly: what does a person looking at you like you've got two heads look like? I'd imagine they'd keep lookinh from one head to the other, wide-eyed and saying "bloody hell mate, you've got two heads! Wow! That must come in real handy sometimes! What happens when you get a cold?" and making idiotic comments such as "heheh, I bet they called you 'Shawn eight-eyes at school!'" and "man your gran must have trouble at Christmas, knitting jumpers with two knecks"... etc. But I think that may be beside the point...
Secondly: I don't think so-called "organised religions" CAN justify their past. Why? Because you are making a huge generalisation. As I commented in another forum, it does not tell you (I can't speak for any other religions, I'm afraid) in the New Testament to go around burning witches. Did Jesus kill possessed people? Or mediums? No.
The fact is, in the 'olden' days, the Church was largely at mercy to it's leaders, such as the king at the time, and on a smaller scale, the parishiners of local churches (the Witch burners). People at the time were nearly all 'Christians' - they all went to Church because it was a status symbol and just something everyone did. It was a time of hypocrasy and corruption - as some 'Churches' are still today (i.e. cults). Very few people could actually read the Bible, let alone own a copy for themselves. So they could be manipulated, and as they were a supistitious society (still running by old wives' tales, etc) and not totally turning to Christ's way anyway, they could burn 'witches' (or a lady who was the talk of the villiage an no-one much liked) and do all sorts of horrific things which certainly aren't Christian. As for Catholics burning encyclopaedias... well... I can't really see why they did that. Maybe they were drunk.
The point is, the faith we have is not what you should be blaming. Do not blame the religion. It was certain people, and people who lead other people who are to blame. You can't say that all Christians/Muslims/whatever did any of the things you mentioned. Going back to medieval Churches: if people were told by those they respected that the thing to do to people who could be witches is to burn them, because GOD says so, then they would do it.
Nowadays, when anyone literate can pick up and read a copy of the Bible, I think you'll find they won't be burning anyone. Not even Satanists.

Lastly: don't ask me about this whole Catholic Vs. Protestant thing. It's not really a religious war - that's just the guise. A guise for a history of hate. They don't like each other because their brother was killed by the other side's father, who was enraged by the death of his sister because of... and so on.

I wrote all this offline, which will probably mean it has no relation to any current converation. [Sigh].

I DO think it's important to separate a religion itself from the political body that makes up the Church. Burning encyclopedias? They did that specifically TO keep people illiterate. People were not illiterate by choice. They were forced into by a culture that realized that keeping people "un-enlightened" was a good way to keep them under control. Much like our media now is full of nonsense about things we have little control over, while major issues (like the ever-incresing hole in the ozone layer, or government disease testing on humans) gets passing discussion. Hmmm. Perhaps things aren't so different after all.

As for witch-trials being a thing of the past, look up McCarthiasm (and that's probably spelled wrong), whereby in recent history in the supposedly politically free US of A, so-called "communists" (last time I checked, communism WAS a legitimate--if oft abused--form of government) were arrested by the bucketful. Careers and lives ruined everywhere, simply for believing in the wrong idealogy. And this in a day and age when most people can, purportedly, figure things out for themselves.

How about book-bannings? Again, a modern phenomenon, used to control what our children have access to, to control what they can and cannot learn. "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison is, for example, banned in many schools because it mentions incest. A subject that, unfortunately, children SHOULD be educated about, as it is something they may need to cope with.

But, it is not possible to completely separate the religion from the politcal organization that is the Church. Many church rules are strictly a result of politics. The Catholic ban on birth control, even for married couples, stems from a time when Catholics were the minority. The best way to get new members is for existing members to have lots of babies. Never mind the fact that, 2000 years later in the face of a planet with two many people, the teaching is not only outdated but downright irresponsible.

One last note on this subject: it is impossible to separate the history of Christianity from the history of persecution. Christianity was, historically, a religion which was forced on an awful lot of cultures agains their will, starting with the decision of one emperor (was it Constantine? ddombrow probably knows....) to make Christianity the only accepted religion. Given the choice between conversion and death, a good many people chose death. But many more said "Sign me up", and who can blame them? Does that make modern Christians guilty for the sins of their fathers? Absolutely not, no more than I am guilty for the truly awful history of slavery in my own country. But does that mean that modern Christians have a duty to look closely at their own history, to understand why things happened, and what can be done to prevent them from happening again? Of course it does.

And a quick comment for Psyduck: of everything you've said (and you've made some very good observations), the one thing that stuck out the most was your comment about love thy neighbor as thyself, and then you said that most of the time you were pissed off at yourself. Perhaps that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but if not... well, take my advice from a few days ago and read "The Tao of Pooh." Rejecting the beliefs of your culture does not mean looking at life through cynical eyes. There are other ways of looking at the world, and fully half of the world's population does NOT believe in one God who is all wise, all powerful, etc etc.

A P.S. to Big Bad whoever whoever: one of the rules of the forum is "no egg-throwing", and that first paragraph looked quite a bit like egg-throwing to me. I'm sure you meant it in a light-hearted way. Just remember, we are all walking a fine line by discussing our different views on what is, to many people, nearest and dearest to their heart. I'm sure no harm was meant.

Peace

Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and wrote the Nicene creed to unite the beliefs of Christianity. However, despite this, as far as I know, Constantine was not known for the persecution of other faiths. Later "Christian" emperors were known more for this. Unfortunately, I have never studied Christian history, seems like something I ought to do.

Also, I think it is important to say that not everyone who calls themself a Christian really is. I would imagine that many might say they are Christians because their parents were, or have other reasons to say they are, but don't have the faith and don't realize what it's all about. When you think about a time like the Middle Ages, where Christianity was such a social universal, it's hard to say how many really were Christians. The point is, the only Christian I can truly account for is myself, and believe me, there are more than enough problems there to occupy my mind.

(smile) Seems like the bravest thing you've said so far, m'dear ddombrow. "I can only truly account for myself." If we all DID account for ourselves (and it seems like most of the people in this forum do, which is nice) the world would be a better place, I dare say.

The truth of the matter is that our spirituality is SUPPOSED to be about how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world. But too many people see it as a bunch of rules to follow, rules that they feel will guarantee them the reward of heaven. Self-reflection is seen as something for those "ivory tower liberals", as they are derogatorily known.

I say that anyone who can honestly say that they have done some soul-searching to reach their religious beliefs, and did not just swallow hook, line, and sinker everything that was told to them, is someone worthy of respect.

The problem with studying history, by the way, is that all histories were written by a biased person (because who among us can honestly say we don't have at least some biases?) with some sort of (possibly subconscious) agenda. For example, women rarely show up in the history books (actually, you probably see a lot more women in your history books now then I did 10 years or so ago when I starged college). Yet scientific fact says that women make up slightly more than half the population. And I find it difficult to believe that they did nothing but sit around and knit and bake until 1969....

BTW, did you have a chance to read my posting on your home-page? My reply to your answer to my questions, that would be...

(what I typed as "starged" above should be "started". Obviously. Can I suggest spellcheck to the gurus of this site?)

"How can organised religions justify their past actions and still condone their ideology, and have they ever apologised open heartedly for their obvious errors...? . Catholicism for advocating the burning of encyclopaedia and the treatment of Gallileo (I think they conceded he was right but was he pardoned...?)"

Please, 'organised religions' is too general. There are many 'organised' religious denominations and/or sects which do not and have not committed the kind of atrocities as, say, the catholics have.

Gallileo backed down, in the end, and let the pope think that he had conceded the pope's infallibility. It is recorded, however, that as Gallileo left his excellency's presence, he was heard to mutter "but still, they *do* move." (He was referring to the planets). The catholics did not concede to Gallileo until the 18th century, if my memory serves me.

"... Christians for witch hunts and crusades..."

Again, 'Christian' is too broad a term to use in this context. The catholics held the witch-hunts, and the crusades, and the inquisition. The catholics, at the behest or order of the reigning pope. No other Christian denomination was involved in any of those things.

And, to answer your other question, no they have not ever made a heart-felt apology. They can't, I guess, because to do so would be to admit that one or some of the popes were fallible. Half of the catholic dogma, doctrine, tradition and ceremony would need to be flushed down the privy if the pope were a fallible human like the rest of us.

Just thought I'd share...

I seem to have stirred a bit of debate about religion here on the web. Time to bring those two topics together into the "now".

Many of the American Christians here may be familiar with the Communications Decency Act, an attempt to censor various unsavoury web-sites. The CDA was so vague that it did not indicate that context should be a factor in deciding what content would be illegal on the Internet. Instead, it outlawed all reference to "sexual and excretory function" in sites that could be accessed by minors.

The following would fall foul if this ever became law (but I believe it was not ratified)...

"One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.'" -- Genesis 19:31-38(NIV)

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts." -- Malachi 2:3 (KJV)

"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord." --Deut. 23:1

(Did someone mention circumcision in African, Middle Eastern and Asian religions...?)

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master
sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak
these words? hath he not sent me to the men
which sit on the wall, that they may eat their
own dung, and drink their own piss with you? "-- 2 Kings 18:27 (KJV)

The Bible containing these quotes not only mentions sexual and excretory function; it's widely sold, distributed, and otherwise made available to minors. Yes, I concede many of these quotes are in a context condemning immoral behavior and the like, but the CDA's original wording did not allow for this fact. Therefore, posting the Bible (or at least those portions of the Bible) on the web would be illegal according to the Communications Decency Act, should it be made US law.

I'd like to close with a final quote.

To forgive is human, to err divine... and I'm glad that I'm encouraging such reasoned debate.