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

I know you've got ddombrow mate for handling questions, but seeing as this is my first venture here I wanted the whole Mötley Crüë around.

First off, a straight question: If gays can't enter the kingdom of god: can bisexuals get in?

There, that was boring. Now something more open-ended:
Do you chaps and chumps ever feel that there are people out there, or people among you, who generally take their religeion (any religeon) too seriously? I mean, after a fairly recent argument with some v devout christians, I thought "hang on, this seems awfully complicated: what these guys can and can't do, what they should and shouldn't do".
And this got me to a book a re-read recently (Shrine by James Herbert). The main character poses a question: what sort of God would want to be {toadied} in such a mindless, boring way".
The lead character here was a lot more cynical, so my words there, not his. But that got me thinking: "yeah, if there is a God and he put us down here, then surely he'd want us to do something more worthwhile with our time than simply just worship him".

I got a feeling that by taking one's religeon too seriously, and thus over-complicating it, people end up missing the basic principles of what that religeon stands for. That's where we end up with these guys making contradictions, causing trouble, and ultimately giving their religeon bad press. I mean, take the explanation of christianity on your page here. Simple, innit? So, why do these people cause such hassle over something so bloody simple???
Recently I realised that my hatred for religeon (and christianity in particular) was not due to the religeon itself, and/or what it stood for. It was it's FOLLOWERS who were taking things to heart, and thus screwing themselves up an refusing to listen to reason. I think that is a pity. I'd love to hear your points of view and stuff concerning this.

*Peregrin wanders by*
I'll have a go at answering you...

> If gays can't enter the kingdom of god: can bisexuals get in?
I would debate your statement about gays. I'm not aware of anything in the Bible stating that gays cannot enter heaven. My knowledge isn't encyclopaedic, so I may be wrong, but the only relevant comment I can find is that God dislikes the practices of gays. Not gays themselves; the practices. I read this as the act of gay sex. I'm not entirely sure of my viewpoint on this point, but at the moment I think it means that gay sex is a sin.
Remember that sins can be forgiven; if somebody has gay sex, it doesn't mean that they're immediately banned from entering heaven.
The bottom line is that God is kind and just; it doesn't matter how much us humans bicker about silly rules, God will judge fairly. And that means he isn't predujiced.

About Christians taking religion too seriously; Yes! Definitely! That is the BIG problem with churches today; Christians getting really up-tight about some little inconsequential problem. Christianity is really very simple; it's us that makes it so complicated and confusing. Just look at the Catholic/Protestant situation in Ireland; do you think that God LIKES His followers to bicker like that? Of course not!
I take God seriously, but only in the sense that He is the most important and central character in my life. That doesn't mean that I should be anal about it all.
About worshipping God; the Bible states that God did put us on the Earth to worship him. But I don't think God classifies worship as boring, endless dirges! Worshipping him, according to the Bible, is living out our lives in honour of him. Singing is just one way of worshipping Him; and I personally find that singing old hymns is all very well and nice for some people but I can't worship God through them. If I don't enjoy it myself, how can I worship Him? It's difficult to explain, but be assured, God wants us to be HAPPY!

> I got a feeling that by taking one's religeon too seriously, and thus over-complicating it, people end up missing the basic principles of what that religeon stands for.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. In the Bible, Paul summed up our lives as Christians very simply: '... Meanwhile these three remain: faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love.'
Love sounds cheesy but it means being nice to everyone, not bickering continually about minor aspects of our religion.

Regarding your repulsion of Christianity, I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Almost always it's because they've been force fed boring Christianity as they were growing up. By their parents, or school, or whatever. Many people don't seem to understand that people can't get to know God by simply knowing things about him, like Bible stories, but only by 'meeting' him personally. And I know personally that arguing with, or in front of, non-believers only strengthens their aversion to anything vaguely Christian.

I have seen quotes lifted straight out of the Bible saying "gays can't enter Heaven", and words to the effect of "kill 'em all". This subject has brought me into some pretty vicious bickering, so I for one would love to have this matter pinned down and sorted out once and for all. Since I've never really read the Bible properly on my own accord, I can't remember which section mentions this subject.

And as for the rest of it....
Damn, you hit the nail right on the head! If only those Powers That Be in our lives could over-emphasise these things earlier on, so we don't end up with kids growing up to be bitter individuals (that'll be me!)
I could go on, but I'd be repeating what's already been covered. I think one problem with getting kids all influenced by christianity from Day 1 is that they need to be told something. As a wee tiddler, didn't we all ask our parents "why are we here?" and stuff like that. It's a pain to try and explain Big Bang and stuff to a 5-year old, so thus you're gonna want to put things in simple terms, whether you believe in them or nicht. "God did it" is ideal for The Young Ones. If only they could (or at least my friends could) understand this when they grow up and choose whatever path they take, invariably rejecting whatever was so painstakingly taught to them for so long.

Well, I just rambled, and without knowing if it had any relevance to the original topic at all (I believe it did not). But etf, that's something else I wanted off my chest *^_^*

Shucks, xtianity ain't that bad after all! One dumbed-down bible for me to read at bedtime, please.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

There's nothing about eternal damnation about gays in the Old Testament because, well, there is nothing about eternal damnation anywhere in the Old Testament. Nor is it mentioned in any great detail in the Gospels, but waits to become a central issue until it appears in Paul's epistles... odd that we should get the word on such an important subject not from God, not from his son, but one who never knew either, don't you think? But back to the central point of this forum... God sentences gays to death because that is the greatest punishment he can mete out.

Who says homosexuality is an important issue? It is a sin surely, but so is lying, cheating, stealing, and other things that are routinely done. And yes I agree that homosexuals deserve to die, but I would also say that people who lie, cheat, and steal deserve death (this would include me as well). The law of God condemns men to death, it is true, because the standard that the law sets is too high for men to meet. The law is perfect, but people are not, and therefore a bridge is needed to span that gap from imperfect to perfect. That bridge is of course the man, Jesus Christ, who died specifically to bridge that gap. Therefore it is appropriate when Paul says in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". (Notice this need for a "redeemer" is also in the OT in the book of Job, among others)

It is not as if Paul is just systematically making all the things he says up. He is making missionary journeys, and when he hears about a church that is having difficulties, if he cannot be there he writes a letter to that Church to deal with the problem. Homosexuality apparently had become a problem in the church of Corinth(?), so he included a section in his letter to deal with it.

Do you really find the idea of substitutive sacrifice so comforting? As for me, it gives me the shivers. I would hate to be sacrificed for someone else's well being. And, as a moral humanist, I therefore refuse to allow anyone to suffer for my transgressions. If Jesus did die for my sins, I certainly didn't ask him to, nor would I, and I think anyone who would allow that sort of thing is scary at best. But then, this is the religion that extolls substitutive sacrifice, and celebrates it through ritual cannibalism.

Substitutive sacrifice isn't comforting at all. What is comforting is that with Jesus substitutive sacrifice ended, once and for all.

But you still accept the concept of it when you accept the sacrifice. Just because you're not actively throwing virgins into the volcano, doesn't mean you aren't condoning that kind of behavior. And, I noticed you steered clear of the ritual cannibalism...

I accept that sacrifice was necessary, not pleasant or comforting. The fact that it is necessary is an abomination, never should have been.

And you'll have to explain the ritual cannibalism to me (I assume you are talking about communion, the "eat my flesh, drink my blood" bit).

I'm just a small-time white boy, just trying to make ends meet. I'm just trying to live my life as best I can, trying to get along by whatever means possible. I am not an evil person, I just do whatever I need to do to survive.
But that boy in my class is so cute, I can't help it. Cheers god. I never did anything wrong to you (barring what I said when your minions came and started on me), but feeling a bit horny (human nature) means you hate me. You never can win, can you? What's so wrong about it anyway?

But why was sacrifice necessary? If God makes the rules, he simply has to say it isn't necessary for it to become unnecessary. He doesn't have to nail someone to a tree and say "Okay, you know what, I had it wrong the whole time. We really don't need to nail people to trees anymore. And, while we're at it, let's stop slaughtering livestock in my temple, because the smell is never going to come out of the carpets."

And yes, ritual cannibalism is the communion. Some believe it is only symbolic, while others believe that a literal transmutation takes place, and they are ingesting the actual blood and body of Jesus. Regardless of which camp you belong to.. isn't it just sick?

Hi. I'm a newbie in here, but I couldn't resist responding to your question about why sacrifice was necessary. By way of an answer, it was necessary because God said it was--and I believe it was to demonstrate God's requirement of perfect justice and yet His perfect mercy. Yes, at the same time. According to Christianity, people are by nature sinful beings and are unable to measure up to God's requirements for salvation under the law. Christ was the fulfillment of that law--hence, Christians today don't follow Old Testament ceremonial laws (like not eating pork, etc. I'm sure there are those who still adhere to them even though it's not necessary anymore. Notice I'm not talking moral law). Anyway, God, being wholly fair, demands justice--namely, a sinful being cannot please Him on its own account. Thus the need in the Old Testament for sacrifices--something must atone for the sinner (Also, the use of blood sacrifices was a foreshadowing, or type, of what Christ would later do on the cross). Christ's death functioned as the ultimate sacrifice because He satisfied the law--a perfect being died for the sake of the undeserving. God's demand for justice was appeased. At the same time, however, Christ's death demonstrated God's absolute mercy. Christ came and perished for an undeserving and ungrateful people who could do nothing to help themselves. God was not required to save anyone, yet He did. Doesn't seem like such a bad deal......

Slightly off subject - you say humans are by nature kniving little s**ts. Yet aren't we created in god's image?

If God is so perfect, why must he demand sacrifice? I'm not perfect, and I would shudder at the idea. And if we're sinful by nature, then who is the biggest sinner? God made us this way. It's all his fault. If he's so perfect, why can't he make perfect beings?

"Christ's death functioned as the ultimate sacrifice because He satisfied the law" - If God is the lawmaker, then it is his fault Jesus had to die, since he could very easily change the law. But if he cannot change the law, then he is not the highest power, and so we're wasting our time entreating him.

But humans were created without sin. Adam and Eve could have lived a perfect life, while you and I can not.

So you're saying that we're guilty of original sin. I'm guilty because some dude thousands of generations ago couldn't keep his hands off a tree. That's horrible morality right there. Should I be held accountable because my father couldn't live on the straight and narrow? Is it moral for Indians to attack whites on sight because their land was stolen five generations ago? Should the French and English go to war again to settle grievances not answered for at Hastings? Should we gas all Germans as penance for the Holocaust? If you say no to any of these, then a God who would send you to eternal punishment because some guy stole a taste of fruit is beneath you.

God did make us perfect, we were the ones who messed things up. And we will be perfect again.

Because God is Righteous, his very existence creates a perfect standard or law. No, he cannot change the law, because the law is perfect, and being perfect he cannot create a law that is imperfect. So rather than lower his own perfect standard, he himself fulfilled that standard so that we might no longer be condemned by it.

You still cannot see the logical flaws in your own argument. If the law is perfect, then why do we not emulate it here on earth? Instead, we find the mercy to forgive sons the transgressions of their fathers, and we have eliminated ritual slaughters for appeasement. That isn't perfect law, but it is far superior to any law any deity ever hacked out in a couple of stone tablets.

Exactly!

Notice Romans 8:2-4

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

You've lost me. You say God's law is perfect. That means that it is absolutely 100% correct, right?
Is this the same law that demands we kill homosexuals? Can you tell I have a bone to pick about that? So much for "love thy neighbour"

Interesting that my proposal for a clean, in-depth discussion back in August was met by stony silence. Is the only way to communicate with you superior types is in your own language: Hate?