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

The idea of "official rabbi". Jesus didn't have a father and so he wasn't permitted to teach. He was an outcast and a trouble-maker along with being a crazed mythic which I find to be alot more interesting than most of the people I meet today. He talked alot about love and that will get ya killed quick as a bunny. Ask the dead students at Kent State.

Jesus had a father, and his name was Joseph. The two bloodlines in Matthew and Luke can agree on little else, but they agree on that.

The NT is full of people calling Jesus 'rabbi', and I can recall one passage in Matthew that discusses Jesus' regular teachings IN the synagogue. You can see today how the Jews value their synagogues... some rogue hippy would not have been permitted to teach there. They call Jesus 'rabbi' because he is precisely that.

YES. Clearly Joseph was Jesus' biological father. If he had not been, then Jesus wouldn't have been truly human, wouldn't have known what it is like to walk in our mocassins, and would not have been able to restore us to friendship with God.

The main problem with Christianity today is essentially the rise of Fundamentalism, which abuses Bible, Church and Intellect. In some churches, I expect to see a sign on the doorstep saying, "Please switch off your brains (and critical faculties) before joining in worship. It may interfere with your blind acceptance of the self-styled pastor's indoctination"

God gave us bodies - love them!
God gave us hearts - use them!
God gave us intellects - inform them!

Any church, priest or minister who doesn't like being questioned, or doesn't like people being different, is NOT being true to Jesus or to orthodos, historic Christianity. And any Church or church leader who tells you they've got all the answers is either lying or displaying psychopathic tendencies. There is no room for control freaks in "The Way." There's lot's of room in authentic Christianity for loving and caring and sharing, and walking together on the road in the company of Jesus.

Father Ted.

But even a liberal Christian can't help but block their minds. Christianity is a dogma that can be used to conveniently fill the gaps in human knowledge. Simply insert "God", "Satan", or "God works in mysterious ways" into any bit of research, and it draws to a stunning halt. That's why the age when religion ruled is called the Dark Ages. The difference between the fundamentalist and the liberal is that the fundie rejects anything that contradicts their beliefs, whereas the liberal simply modifies their beliefs whenever

"If he had not been, then Jesus wouldn't have been truly human, wouldn't have known what it is like to walk in our mocassins, and would not have been able to restore us to friendship with God." - See, even this statement requires an off switch. How do we know Jesus was more than human? How do we know that he restored us to friendship with God? How do we even know there is a god?

A truly liberal Christian doesn't necessarily block her or his mind. She or he has to acknowledge that she or he may have got it wrong. I don't believe in a "God of the Gaps" which science fills. Yes, generally in the West, we live in a science/technology based culture. Yes, in the "Dark Ages" - which weren't as dark as all that, I suspect, there was much belief in magic and much superstition - and these seriously distorted - often buried - the teachings of the Carpenter from Nazareth.

The liberal (or radical) explores - pushes the boundaries - and is open to concrete, objective evidence. Interestingly, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, and a number of contemporary world leading physicists - including a number at Cambridge (UK!) believe that the Universe is opening out again, Newton's Clockwork Universe is on its way out, and metaphysical questions are again on the agenda. Also, logical positivism (Religious language is meaningless) is on the wane.

I see no conflict between science and religion if both are engaged in an honest and exciting search for meaning and truth.

Maybe Jesus WASN'T more than human. Perhaps he was TRULY human!

Yes, on my death - or on your death - the lights may go out, Colonel, and we will know no more and I will have been proved wrong and you will have a pyrrhic victory. It's just that in my search for life, and loving, and meaning - I think I sometimes get glimpses of something (or someone) beyond - and others - billions of others since we came down from the trees and stopped eating bananas - have had similar glimpes. We don't KNOW (or not know) that God exists. And I may be sadly misinterpeting my experience and relationship with the One I see as the Lover of Souls.

"The liberal (or radical) explores - pushes the boundaries - and is open to concrete, objective evidence." - I guess I qualify as a liberal, then. I wonder, though, how this can be made to suit a theological viewpoint. There is, after all, a complete vacuum of concrete, objective evidence to support it.

As for the "pyrrhic" victory, that's not what this is about. It's not about winning and losing in the afterlife, but in this one, the one for which we have concrete, objective evidence. People live their lives according to their superstitions, and Christianity is one of the worst superstitions around. You sound like a fairly reasonable example of them, but "truly liberal" Christians are very difficult to find. You should have seen the primitive behavior I encountered in a chat room when the subject of "Q" came about...

And I've never seen any evidence of religion being anything resembling honest. It's all a business, and an incredibly lucrative one. What other field can you get into where you rake in such huge profits without even producing anything?

Right. No empirically verifiable evidence. But, I think, a lot of strong pointers, albeit pointing both ways. I wonder how one "proves" one loves one's partner, or children? I happen to believe God works mostly in relationships. A directly interventionist God would, after all, cause chaos.

I sense I am loved by someone way above and beyond myself, and the orthodox Christian belief "fits" my sense. I don't mean the rabid fundamentalist God - that's an affront both to human dignity and reason, and to God.

Yes. It can be lucrative - if it's worshipping the American tele-evangelist in sharp suit with oily, insincere smile and hands so sweaty one wonders how the cash doesn't fall through them.

But orthodox religion is based on the cross - at first sight, not a terribly successful event for God.

Now. I get paid maybe half my episcopalian counterpart. I could earn three times as much as a UK teacher or social worker. But I enjoy my job. My large, ancient parish church in an East Anglian market town needs about $400,000 to make it a proper and useful place of meeting for ALL - Christian and non - and a proper centre for the ten small village churches and communities we serve. And we're not going up a pole threatening to die if people don't send us money FAST. So what I might call TRUE religion isn't lucrative. Over this side of the pond, the Anglican Church has a responsibility for everyone in each parish - regardless of faith or commitment. And we are sadly lacking in resources because we're not prepared to sell God like soap powder or breakfast cereal!

All good wishes.

One proves one's love to one's partner or child easily enough, through behavior. My girlfriend has proven her love to me, in the way she looks at me, the way she smiles at me, the way she talks to me, touches me, etc. And she makes every indication that I have proven the same to her.

Of course, relationships between humans are bi-directional. By saying or doing certain things, and then evaluating her reactions, I can tell how she is feeling about me at any given moment. But any relationship with a god is, by nature, uni-directional. It is therefore impossible for you to know how that relationship is doing, if it does in fact exist.

A few odd points being raised here, but I will simply answer the one about 'proving' love; I am sure that a competant actress could equally give you those same signs of looking and touching without ever loving you.

In fact my cat rubs against my leg but this does not mean she loves me, she merely wants to please herself and be fed!

I don't think Jesus was a rabbi, his disciples called him teacher because he taught them and it was jewish custom that visitors to a synagogue were invited to speak. Also, isn't jesus metioned in the book thingy that jews have, not the torah, the other one, and that backs up alot of xian beleifs and wouldn't have been doctored by the church

You're talking about the Koran. Unfortunately, it has no validity as a historical source about Jesus, because it wasn't written until the 8th century CE.

Jewish custom to permit visitors to speak? You mean to tell me they invite nonbelievers to come in and preach alternate religions? I'm afraid I'm going to need some serious evidence to support that theory.

No, not the koran, the tulmud. It's pretty ant jesus but it still supports his existance. Jesus went to the synagoges as a jew and the jews invited him to speak because of that

It's important to notice that 'problems with christianity' may not be with christianity itself. For example, take the contradiction that the bible condemns the use of idols but a church may be full of them. Notice that this isn't a contradiction within christianity - it is a contradiction between christianity and that particular church. It proves that that church is not truly christian, not the christianity itself is wrong.

It's a contradiction between that part of the bible and that particular church. Either that part of the bible is wrong, or the church, or both. Since many churches have moved on from a literal interpretation of the entire bible. Also, jesus said a number of things which can be interpreted to absolve christians from following certain of the old testament scriptures - such as killing witches, or avoiding shelfish.

Reality is rarely so simple to allow for proof.

-Xanthia