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

Hi T.G.

I don't know where the question of two sources writing two accounts of creation has come from. The account in Gen 1 runs into Gen 2 but is not contrdictory and the author of Genesis is traditionally thought to be Moses, being part of the Pentateuch (referred to in Jewish tradition as "The five fifths of the law of Moses").

Concerning your next comments, I have never made an assumption about you. In fact some of the most fervent non believers I've met have had a very religious up-bringing and know the bible inside out, and way way better than me...whilst I was brought up by two extremely honest hippies (who were so non-conformist that they never fitted in with the hippies either...resulting in me getting a weird name and none of us ever having much money...but that's a totally different matter)! However I will repeat that you cannot presume to know my mind just because I call myself a "christian". Your entry did generalise and I pointed this out.

I never once asserted that I am absolutely right and others are wrong. Everyone in this world is different and we all have our own thoughts, feelings, and relationships with our own "gods", or not as the case may be. Since I don't believe any of us can be anything other than who we are, I could never deem anyone as wrong (unless they say I'm ugly in which case they're right off the wall lol)

You got me on the next one...I do disagree with many orthodox church teachings, but only the ones where they go against the bible! Just today I went to a newly opened local "christian cafe". I'm sure that the people there are lovely but as a smoker I could not go in and relax and have a fag with my tea...there's loads of space in there so I wouldn't have to invade anyone's air and I feel that it's basically deeming smokers unworthy of mixing with. This is not in accordance with the bible since Jesus loved "sinners"! I really do understand why they piss you off, I've told street evangelists who tried to tell me I'd die of AIDS because my boyfriend had blue hair to F. off in the past. I just want to point out that some of us are normal.

The spider squashing was supposed to reflect sending us to hell rather than physically destroying us with floods etc...that's life!

Once again, I thought I was starting with a sure bet and who ever God is I reckon if someone follows their heart in truth they'll get a better deal than the hypocrites who go around giving God a bad name!

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it (unless you have something better in your pipe of course) lol;_)

The contradictions of the two accounts of Genesis:

Time: Creation story one took six days for the creation of the earth (1:31). Creation story two unfolds all in a single day (2:4).

Sequence: Creation one follows this sequence of construction: Light/dark - heaven/earth - land/sea, vegetation - sun, moon, stars - sea creatures, birds - land animals, man.

Creation two follows this sequence: heaven/earth - water - man - vegetation - animals.

Clearly, man cannot have been formed both before and after plants and animals, it must be one or the other.

And here's what the Catholics have to say about its authorship: "Despite its unity of plan and purpose, the book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly sources, which in turn refelct older oral traditions."

And this little bit in their introduction to the Pentateuch as a whole: "This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not consider him as the author of the books in the modern sense."

I have known many believers, but I have yet to find one with more than a casual understanding of the bible.

It's going to be a long night.

"Concerning your next comments, I have never made an assumption about you"

Oh no? Let's see: 'you cannot be expected to understand or believe anything the bible has to say', 'I believe that if someone doesn't know what they're talking about they're probably best off to say nothing. People often disagree with things they don't understand', 'take into consideration that T.G. does not know all "christians" opinions', 'and not knowing him personally Twophlag can't be expected any more than anyone else to understand his teachings'. How's that for starters?

"However I will repeat that you cannot presume to know my mind just because I call myself a "christian"

Well, no, I can't. But by labelling yourself a Christian you choose to associate yourself with what is done and said in the name of Christianity. If I were to label myself as a Nazi skinhead, you would probably immediately assume that I'm not big on Jewish people, for example, and that would be a reasonable assumption on your end... not that I would leap to label myself as either a Christian or a Nazi.

"Your entry did generalise and I pointed this out"

Of course it generalized. What do you think, should I include a paragraph that reads, "According to a self-proclaimed housewife named Raspberria, who knows the Truth about God, and Christianity, and the Bible, God really exists because without God existing God couldn't exist, and she's right. I just know she's right." Sorry, but that gets a bit specific, and I have problems with the logic.

"I never once asserted that I am absolutely right and others are wrong"

Oh no? I must have misconstrued statements like, 'I think that whether you worship any deity or not, it is a good idea to respect the most almighty of them all', 'I don't believe in anything that is not real', 'Basically I'm far too sensible to place a bet where the odds aren't totally spot on in my favour', 'How can anyone understand a way of life totally alien to them', 'you're wrong about the true christian church', 'he had portrayed "christians" all wrong', etc. etc. See, I wouldn't mind you picking a specific point and voicing some reasoned disagreement with it, but just saying the whole thing is 'wrong' gets us nowhere.

There is a logical fallicy Christians (and probably others) often make when arguing their faiths. They assume that the other person KNOWS there is a "God" but has chosen not to believe in this "God" out of stubbornness or something. What they (and you) often seem unable to address is having the onus placed on them to establish from first principles a reasonable frame of reference from which to construct their arguments. For instance, you seem to be saying at several points "Even though you don't accept the existence of the Christian God, since the Christian God really exists you should affirm his existence anyways." Obviously, I would have to be an utter lunatic to even bother.

"The spider squashing was supposed to reflect sending us to hell rather than physically destroying us with floods etc...that's life"

Which could also be construed as your God's fault. But if Hell exists, your God must be intending on sending someone there when they die... that pretty much makes him a sadistic, maniacal psychopath, and any covenant with him isn't worth the blood it's written with. Even Hitler never sent anyone to an eternity of torment. Vlad the Impaler comes out as quite merciful by comparison. And the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, could be interpreted as mercy (and they were) in light of the alternative.

"Once again, I thought I was starting with a sure bet and who ever God is I reckon if someone follows their heart in truth they'll get a better deal than the hypocrites who go around giving God a bad name!"

Why would God care what people say or think about him? What's this need to have people abase themselves before his greatness? Being omniscient, doesn't he KNOW he's great already? Obviously, in addition to being a sadist, God is also a narcissistic Sun-King.

I have a question for you, drawn from uh... maybe CS can pinpoint this one for me. It's more of a story actually.

A little girl growing up in the steppes of Russia is being raised by parents who don't care about her at all. They beat her, make her work, keep her locked up at night, feed her mouldy bread, and make her go barely clothed through the winters. One cold night, they decide it would be amusing to lock her in the outhouse while they have their evening meal. They do so after beating her severely and fracturing her skull, and as they sit inside warming themselves by the fire, feasting on potatoes and steak and wine, the girl lies in the outhouse dying of cold and blood loss. As consciousness begins to slip from her, the girl, who has never prayed in her life, offers up her soul to the universe in surrender and whispers, "Please God... don't let me die... life is so beautiful.. if only I had had a chance to see more of it." Then she dies, and the next morning her parents throw her body into a garbage pit where it is devoured by wolves. The sky above is empty, and silent.

This is life as I see it. Any God who would sit back and watch this happen in a universe he created isn't worth a dollop of s**t; and yet, this kind of thing happens quite often. Blame humans, blame Satan, or postulate that God gets the evil parents back by sending them to hell if you want; that doesn't change the fact that the universe is a s**tty place to be.

Is it God's will that a baby deer should die in painful agony in a forest fire?

I thought so.

Not a nice story. Is it true? If not it doesn't matter. Life is full of tragedy as you so rightly assert.

Lucinda and I had a discussion of rationalism. When I graduated from University (with a degree in Philosophy as it happens) I promptly forgot almost everything I learned. Something Wittgenstein said stayed with me and happily (a coincidence) I saw it repeated yesterday in a newspaper:

"We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched"

Dr Bert Keizer comments (in a lecture on modern medicine being overrated):

"So when a patient asks: 'why am I to die?' And the doctor responds with a lengthy disquisition on the insufficiency of her coronaries, the accumulation of fluids in the lungs, the patient will soon interrupt all this physiology and will say: 'never mind all that, I meant why me?' "

The world without belief does not have the capacity to fulfill people. What substance is desire? What is hope? How do we feel about dying? No rational explanation of the actuality of these things will satisfy a person. But the experience of pain and of pleasure, of hope and despair, and of a million other intangibles creates for us an inner life beyond that of the purely rational.

We believers must, of course, not be bloody minded and stubborn in the face of genuine evidence that runs contrary to our point of view. But, the opinion of another individual will never be sufficient evidence for me.

Because the totality of knowledge cannot exist in the human brain, every person has the capacity to be wrong. People respond to religion, I feel, because it provides a structure for interpreting life - not trying to answer every question but simply providing a frame of reference for the creation of a feeling of security within that person. here's my structure - hope its not boring...

I have inside me the capacity to feel some things very strongly. I will call them instincts in order to provide a word that is not exclusive to any creed (or indeed animal). In fact I often trust these instincts where my eyesight or hearing fails me. I find that, however someone else might assert that they are derived, these instincts I have are often later justified in fact, they rarely let me down. Kismet, coincidence, deja vu, kharma - these things abound in the universe of experience. They lead me one way - they may lead you in another. I cannot know or understand what it is like to BE YOU (and vice versa). I call my instincts towards certain premises or ideas "Belief". The trust I place in them I call "Faith". Because I feel them inside I call them "Personal". Because they are often outside of my natural ability to perform as a person I believe they are divine and communicated to me by some other. This other speaks my language but not like just another person - my name fot this other is God. Because I respond to the other, I might assert that we have a relationship. When I read my bible I recognise the other in the words, deeds and experience of the mortal and divine presences in that book and I relate to them. I also relate well to those who have similar experiences and feelings (instincts) about the world as I do. I find these instincts so fascinating I will gladly share my understanding of them with everyone. I also encourage everyone to discover for themselves a frame of reference, if they do not already have one, within which to place those experiences in life which exist outside of the purely rational. A management system for the emotional life if you like. I call the management system a "spiritual life" - by spiritual I mean beyond the physical (rational).

This is just mine. As I say there are billions of others. The consistency in belief of enough of them might create a superficial understanding of "religion" and one might even entitle an article in a website "GOD" because God is a component of some of the systems people adopt. One might also explore the historical background of such systems and make some intersting points. As we have discussed the differences in belief are so manifold that such an article and such a weighty title will NEVER DO JUSTICE to the reality of anybodys personal system. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

> "one might even entitle an article in a website "GOD" because God is a component of some of the systems people adopt ... and such a weighty title will NEVER DO JUSTICE to the reality of anybodys personal system."

Of course. In the same way that the photographic reproduction of Mona Lisa on my bedroom wall totally fails to do justice to the original. Or the edited entry in h2g2 on the Morris Minor will never manage to describe it's intrinsic beauty.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This post has been removed.

The Pope is the only one who can talk to God? News to me...

re: not following the book

I don't think you're fair to call them hypocrites. They may think that the book isn't literally true, and/or isn't always the precise word of god. They may have been spoken to by God, and given direct commands that overrule the more general commands in the book. They may be human, hence fallible. They may be members of that sect that believe that forgiveness of sins shows Gods greatness, therefore it is their duty to do as nasty sins as possible so that God can forgive them. They may not have read the entire bible, and so missed out on commands not to do some obscure things like eating shellfish. They may be confused by the apparent contradictions, and so turned to prayer, priest, and/or intuition over slavish obedience. They may have misinterpreted the book. They may feel that some things are more important than God or the book, and they may be right in feeling that.

Hypocracy is communicable by observation.

as is bad speeling...

Well I call a hypocrite a hypocrite...but bless the lot of us.

We're all only human!
...Now, about that kebab

By the way Lucinda, do you know you look a bit like the guy out of Culture Club (not boy george, jon moss or mikey...the other one) just a little!

hmm - is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Who can say whether it's a good thing or a bad thing...isn't that part of life's great mystery?

I'll tell you what is strange though m8...you look even more like a boy I snogged when I was 15 than the guy from Culture Club!

Int life brilliant! Hehehehe!

Take care all!

About 15 years ago I was walking down the street not believing in anything greater than myself when I saw a flower in bloom. I stopped and admired this beauty and as I did so realised that there was deffinately something at work here that was greater than myself. That which is greater than myself is part of myself and as a part I am somehow also part creator of this flower.

Myth plays a huge role in our beliefs and our lives. Just look at your own family history (especially fueds) and you will see myth at work there. And you can also see how personal beliefs are.

I appreciate that I can come here to see such varied beliefs in these conversations because without differences this would be a dull Galaxy indeed.

If the Christian religion is correct then we all go to heaven eventually. "Christ died on the Cross for all our sins" - what do you think that is meant to mean?

Think about it (and I speak as an Agnostic with an interest in Christian Theology). God (who in the Old Testament is Judgemental) sends to the world his son (ie he experiences humanity). He learns that to be human is hard and difficult and that the simplest twist of fate can make you close to or far from God. He is, remember, an all-wise and all-forgiving being so he learns to understand humanity and his ability to judge is lost. Remember what Christ said on the cross "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." Practically an expanation for evil to God himself.

Christ died for our sins, so that we could get to heaven w/out the whole animal sacrafice thing. Christ was the ultimate sacrafice and he died so that our sins could be forgiven, if we accept it. God already knew what life as man was like (he is omniscient after all). However we must ask for that forgiveness. Sorta like the diffenrence between taking a dollar (or any monetary unit) and saying "i knew you would say yes" and asking for the dollar. I hope im not confusing.

Christ died so you could get to heaven without animal sacrifice? Doesn't that seem like some lame bureaucrat's trick to you?

"You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that
way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account..."

Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life"

If you're an almighty deity, do you have to stoop to such tricks?

i apologize, in the old testamen it was nessesary to live by certain laws also. would you rather buy animals every month to sacrafice them? Besides if you ever become God then you can decide. <- that was meant in humor.

Yes, but didn't God create those laws? So if they were stupid laws, it's because they were provided by a stupid god. Or a stupid man. You decide.

God is omniscient? He proves his lack of omniscience only 3 chapters into his own story:

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" - Genesis 3:8-9.

He commits 4 other gaffes before Genesis is even concluded. 18:20-21 is another winner.

Moral of the story: Read for yourself, and don't believe everything you're told.

*lol*

Maybe he was being the "Prankster God" that Bill Hicks mentioned and playing Blind God's Buff

Who said the laws were stupid? Besides God might have been giving them a chance to redeem themselves. What are the other four? By the way i do and have read for myself.