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

A point on crosses. There are a number of Christian traditions that do not use the cross or anything else as a symbol. My room mate, for example, is a part of The United Church of God and they absolutely do not show a cross under any circumstances. Many conservative sects decry the use of a cross as a symbol as it strikes too close to idolitry. The LDS (Mormons) also do not use crosses at all. I am not sure about the Jehova's Wittnesses, but I do not believe that they use a cross. I'd have to ask around to find out about the 7th Day Adventists.

I may be taking this point out of context, so I will get my ducks in a row and read the full conversation again to make sure.

Thanks Marv. The fact that certain Christian sects see the connection between the cross and idolatry strengthens my argument here.

Ok, why is the cross (not the crucifix, the cross) an idol but the Star of David isn't?

(and am I right in thinking that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Jesus was the son of God, in which case them using the cross would be a bit pointless as the whole point of using a cross instead of a crucifix is to emphasise the ressurection and thus Jesus' divinity? I'm not sure about the stance of the other "sects" Marv mentions (I think Blatherskite you'll find that "denominations" is the technical term used by both Christians and non-Christians alike to refer to different branches of Christianity, although whether people who don't believe Jesus was the son of God can be viewed as Christians as Christians is a controversial issue I wont go into here as there are other forums for that!) but the Seven Day Adventists have no problems with worshiping in my local Methodist Church which displays a cross)

I already answered that one, but I guess I have to try again.

Christians who are against the crucifix object to it for different reasons. Some are against it because it violates the commandment about graven images. But others are against it because they worship a Jesus who rose to heaven, and is therefore no longer on the cross. Thus, the bare cross is a symbol of Jesus, and it is worshipped just as much as the crucifix.

And here's a Christian sect that believes the cross and the crucifix are both idols: http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/cross.htm

I am a Christian. I wear a cross. I also wear a bracelet on it with fish. I do not worship the cross. I do not worship the fish. Both really serve only so that other people can see that I'm a Christian. If I didnt wear them it wouldn't make me any less of a Christian, and wearing them makes me no more of a Christian. i wore a cross for a year before I became a "proper" Christian (as opposed to a nominal one), similarly now I am a Christian I don't always wear them.

I can see why you might interpret the crucifix as an idol (although I'd maintain that its not), however I don't see how the cross is one. And you still havent answered the star of david question. Its a genuine question, I'm obviously mistaken in what the purpose of the star of David is if I'm mistaken in likening it to the Christian use of the cross.

Just so you know pikin, I also am a Christian albiet a poor example of one. I use a cross as a reminder of my faith. I do not worship it. In fact I have a tattoo of a cross on my calf as an outward symbol of my faith to others.

The question about whether a cross or crucifix is an idol is surely about the "intentionality" of the individual or religious community concerned. In itself it's just a bit of wood of a certain shape.

Noggin

"intentionality"?

Philosophical/psychological term denoting the attitude or motivation of the subject towards the object (derived from intention, but having a specialist use that's not identical to the original).

Noggin

Thought it might be something like that!

In that case I agree! Whether or not the cross or crucifix can be used as idols and whether or not they actually are are two different things entirely. Clearly anyone could use the cross as an idol, however my point is that no Christian individual or "sect" I know, or have heard of, does!

The Star of David differs from the cross in two ways: it is a recent development, and no two people can agree on what exactly it symbolizes: http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Star_of_David.asp

But the key reason it is not an idol is because it is only a symbol of belonging to a faith... it is not in itself a religious talisman or a representation of the Jewish god.

By contrast, the crucifix is a direct representation of Jesus, and therefore an idol. And faiths who use the cross as a symbol of "Jesus risen" as described in the article I posted earlier are likewise idolaters, because their cross is still a symbol of their god. Anyone who uses the sign of the cross as a talisman (kneeling before, gazing upon, or physically touching it while praying, for instance) to connect them to their god is also an idolater.

By these definitions, most Christians are idolaters, because I'm sure most have done the talisman thing at one time or another. I know I did before I got over religion. The only way the cross can be used without being identified with idolatry is to use it as Marv suggested... as a symbol to identify your religious leanings to other people.

And that's the last thing I have to say about that. I feel that the idolatry thing is actually the least important thing we've discussed in this forum, and I feel like some much more important points are being forgotten while we discuss the cross. So those of you who wish to continue to disagree, feel free.

I have a question - if there are all these inconsistencies in Christianity, how do you explain the fact that more people follow Christianity than any other religion? Are all Christians just being duped?

There are a lot of different reasons why Christianity continues to be popular (though it is in slow decline), and different reasons work for different members:

1) Born into it and don't bother to question it.
2) Live in an insular community that doesn't invite questioning.
3) Most variations actively discourage questioning.
4) Too intellectually lazy or inequipped to question.
5) People happy enough to believe and prefer to leave it alone.
6) That which passes for "Bible study" blinds the believer. The study hours give the reader a false sense of security in their knowledge of the Bible, but the myopic method of study is insufficient to reveal the inconsistencies. Comparative analysis is the real key to understanding the Bible.
7) The common prejudice that "good" and "Christian" are both synonymous and inseparable.

And that's just off the top of my head.

None of those apply to me ...

It's an interesting point of view - I've read many articles just like yours, and follow up articles that prove the points that the author of the original is trying to disprove ... unfortunately I can't get my hands on any of them at the moment.

- I wasn't born into Christianity
- I don't live in an insular community - neither is my church insular
- My minister and other church ministers, as well as my 'Bible Study' groups all actively encourage me to question, and come to ME to find out what I want to know.
- I'm not intellectually lazy or inequpped to question
- I'm not happy enough to just believe - I studied, fairly in depth, other religions before I chose to follow Christianity.
- I don't just do Bible Study - I do that for my own relationship with God, but I also spend time reading articles such as your own and other takes on Christianity in order to gain a full understanding.
- I know many people who are good people who are not Christian.

I realise that the reasons that you give are ones that you have thought up, and I don't intend to debate my faith with you.

I believe that it's a bit more complex than 'just believing' or 'not questioning'. Yes - you're right - I know plenty of people who do fit into one or more categories that you've listed. But I don't. And I am a Christian.

In the end though, what does it matter to you whether or not Christianity is a myth? Does it really matter or not if Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago? If God is real, the important thing is that we believe that Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago and that if we believe in Him then we are saved - whether or not it really occurred is actually a moot point. If God isn't real - then what have we got to lose? If there's nothing except the universe, what harm is it being a Christian? If there's something else - Fate, Destiny, another God -- I'd like to see better proof than what I've already seen of the God (the Holy Trinity) that I know. It goes beyond reading and praying. I've experienced God supernaturally, and you'll be hard pressed to prove to me that what I've experienced is not real.

On a side note - I found your article wonderfully written, and you've clearly gone to a lot of effort to find out about many areas of the Christian faith, as well as put a lot of effort into your arguments against it. A great article. If you've done as much research into Christianity as I think you have and you still don't want to be a Christian - then more power to you on your journey. I think we will have to agree to disagree. Just keep in mind that Darwin was studying to be a priest when he came up with the theory of evolution. We're human beings - we can hold two logically inconsistent thoughts at the same time, if we have real belief in both. Just because you believe in the theory of evolution doesn't mean that you have to give up on God. And it's the same here. Just because you don't think Jesus didn't die on a cross, doesn't mean that you can't believe in Jesus.

~~respectfully submitted~~

~~respectfully received~~

I have known some perfectly reasonable, intelligent people who have been exposed to this sort of thing and still feel comfortable with their religion. Roman Catholicism and the CofE are increasingly led by such people, and I have no issue with that. I think they may be deliberately creating an intellectual blind spot for their belief, but so long as they limit the blind spot there is no harm done.

"If God is real," - That is a big IF.

"If God is real, the important thing is that we believe that Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago and that if we believe in Him then we are saved - whether or not it really occurred is actually a moot point." - This is where I disagree. I think that regardless of whether you choose to look at other biblical episodes as allegory, legend, or fable, if there is no literal truth in the crucifixion, then why bother with Christianity at all? This one incident *must* be true, or the entire structure is false.

"If God isn't real - then what have we got to lose? If there's nothing except the universe, what harm is it being a Christian?"

I think we have a lot to lose. If there is nothing except the universe, then we have nothing except our own lives, and the lives of those around us. In that case, we should be devoting our attention to this life, enriching the experience for those around us in the hope that they do the same, and safeguarding our legacy for those who come after. That path is incompatible with a religion that views life as a temporary trial, an unhappy burden that they must bear until their real reward comes after death. There would never be an atheist Inquisition, or witch trial, or Jonestown.

"I've experienced God supernaturally, and you'll be hard pressed to prove to me that what I've experienced is not real." - This actually fits very neatly with an argument I am having elsewhere regarding subjective and objective truth. I have no doubt that you have had experiences that you interpret as contact with God. That it was real to you, a single observer, makes the contact, and therefore the existence of God, subjectively true. It is subjective because it depends on the observer (you), and cannot be observed by outside means.

But to prove God's existence objectively, meaning that he can be proven to exist independent of your own observations and experiences, would require strict testing in accordance with scientific principles. The experience would have to be repeatable, consistent through a wide range of variables, and unfalsifiable.

Such experiments simply do not work. All such reports of divine contact are thus only real to the observer, and fail to prove the objective existence of God. If he existed, the objective evidence would be irrefutable.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the Jesus thing. I personally believe that Jesus was real, and that He came as my personal saviour. But if He wasn't real, and if Jesus is just a concept then I don't really see the difference. If God is still going to save me because I have accepted Jesus, even though he didn't really exist, if this is just something that God made up, it doesn't really matter to me if it was real or not - as long as God is going to accept me. I'm not being as clear as I would like to right now, because I'm in the middle of a completely unrelated assignment. I personally don't believe that God would lie to us, so that's why I believe that Jesus was real.

With regards to your comment on life being a burden - I certainly don't see it as such - even as a Christian. I see it as a gift that I didn't have to recieve, and I don't see it as a burden at all. Perhaps the witch and atheist inquisitions would have happened without Christianity, but then again, who's to say what would have happened if there was no Christianity? Anything could have taken the place - things that caused just as horrible things. *shrug* It's a big what if.

I do believe in enriching the lives of people around me and hoping they do the same - doing those things and being a Christian are not mutually exclusive. I totally and completely accept all people - even people who practice 'faiths' that rub me totally the wrong way - they enrich my life, and I hope that their contact with me enriches theirs. I don't run up to people on the street and tell them that their life is unfulfilled because they haven't discovered Jesus - they're just as important a part of my life as the people I know that are Christians, perhaps even more so because I'm getting a wider view of the world. I'm not saying this very well. I don't think you have to be a non-Christian to want to enrich the life of yourself and others, nor do I think you have to be a Christian. I believe that you have to make your own peace with your beliefs and life to your own standards. If God is real (and you have pointed out that it is an if), then people have to make their own peace with Him at some point.

Logically, if people experience the same or similar things on a number of occasions - not just a few, but hundreds, that would lead to the assumption that the experience is derived from the same source, would it not? I understand your argument regarding the proving of the existence of God, but I just wonder if scientific proof is the only way to prove things. Before science, there were many kinds of empirical 'proof' and I don't think science has all the answers. I just wonder if a list was compiled of all the people who have been given a prayer language, or have had other experiences with God and the Holy Spirit, that would be enough? But you say that any proof would need to be obtained scientifically, and by definition, God cannot be proved in that fashion. That's where faith comes into it - and I've already read your arguments on faith.

It's like in Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - if God proved His existence, He would be contradicting Himself and would have to cease to exist, because He Himself says that he can't be proven completely, there has to be an element of faith involved.

If it's not too personal a question, what is your position on faith - what do you believe in? Have you ever tried Christianity? Have you ever tried to have contact with the Holy Spirit?

And an even more important question - if you did, would it prove to you the existence of God?

~~chicken~~

I'm keeping an open mind and trying to follow argument and counter-argument carefully, but at least there's a little bit more light here on one of the things that bugs me about Christianity.

We're told that the Bible is the all-important revealed word of God through which God may be understood more clearly.

I've met Christians who put such an exaggerated emphasis on the Bible it's as if they're holding up the Book and mistaking it for God, as if the book itself is a holy icon to be revered. (does this make sense?)

Going along with this is a kind of bovine belief that the Bible fell, fully-formed, to Earth all in one go, that it is immutable and unchangeable, it always was and ever more shall be.

Yet we know it took over three hundred years from the death of Jesus to the "final cut" of the books of the New Testament.

This is the crux of my problem with this religion. What happened in those three hundred years before the Book, and following on from the book, the Dominant Theology, finally appeared? It's clear to me that once you have a set text, it may as well be graven in stone because this will shape the way people are taught to think and believe.

Once you control how people think and believe, you exert power over them.

So - who made the choice of which of many holy books were going to be canonical, and why? After a three hundred year gap from the death of the Founder, do those books which were chosen have any resemblence to what he may have taught? That's a long time - how much insight do we have into the mind of somebody who lived in the early 1700's, and how much of their life could we accurately reconstruct from this distance?

This is a relevant question, as today evangelical sects place absolute emphasis on the bible as the Word of God and that their sect's particular interpretation of that Word is the only way to Heaven.

If the selection criteria for inclusion in that Bible was in any way flawed, a lot of things here and now are invalidated, particularly the various sects' theologies.

Yet we know it took over three hundred years from the death of Jesus to the "final cut" of the books of the New Testament.

I want to put you right on something. Whilst it is true to say that the 'final cut' took some time, the actual bulk of the bible as we know it today was put together within a genereation of the founder. There were only a few epistles left and they were included long before 300 years later. So you see the theological backbone was laid well before the time you are suggesting here.

And as for the rest of history, for instance, the biography of Alexander the great wasn't written for something like 900 years after the 'fact. No-one doubts anything regarding this (and others like it)historical 'gem'

False analogy. The writings on Alexander are based on first-hand accounts written by people very close to him... his general Ptolemy, his personal court historian Callisthenes, and a camp engineer Aristobulus, for example. These are not surviving. The surviving histories which were derived from them come mostly from first century Roman sources, which means you've missed your estimate by half a millenium.

You're calling me ignorant in the other thread, so naturally I expect better than this from you.

Alternatively, while the Gospels purport to be from those close to Jesus, they've all been proven to have come from elsewhere. None of them were written by disciples. As for the Epistles, we already know that Paul never knew Jesus, apart from that ludicrous myth of being struck blind, which is as much history as Alexander's conception via thunderbolt.

And it's worth pointing out that Alexander's conception is but one of many legends surrounding him which many doubt regarding this historical gem.

<>

Proven, blathers? By whom and when? I fear yopur emotion clouds your reason...