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

GB: re: the statement that you are an atheist, and therefore find all religions silly. Don't you find the principles that govern other people's lives interesting?
I totally agree with you about the danger of allowing Christianity to govern our countries and dominate politics. Mind you, not everybody practicing religion is a maniac. I think that these fundamental ideas about banning religion generally come from people who either promote ingnorance, or christians whose faith is particularly weak. After all, if they were so damn faithful, then ideas about evolution would not threaten their beliefs at all. I'm totally comfortable with my atheist beliefs, and because of this I do not feel threatened in any way by religious faith. However, the religious politics in Britain is not nearly as strong as in the US. If there were maniacs dictating that science was evil etc. in the government of this country, I'd feel threatened. And I'd be out of a job!!

GB, I think you must be referring to The National Secular Society @ http://www.secularism.org.uk/
They also have a journal called The Freethinker @ http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

As far as I'm aware, the Anglican Church only has political representation in the upper house, that is to say the House of Lords, which is currently in the throes of much-needed reform. For some reason this reform doesn't seem to include getting rid of the religious influence along with the tired old hereditaries that have been clogging up the system all these years... All the same, the signs are that Britain is finally (thinking about) moving into the Modern era - just as everyone else is moving on somewhere else...

Yeah, I suppose all this fiasco over trying to remove clause 28 shows just how archaic the Lords are. And a lot of the opposition to it came from the Anglican contingent of the Upper House.

And also from the Daily Mail / Telegraph reading contingent of middle England. I suspect that in the long run it may be easier to reform political institutions than the insides of peoples' heads...

For 'Chess Player' read 'Lear', by the way. Posted under the wrong alter-ego by mistake...

I think that the majority (but probably not overwhelming) of the younger people in the country (i.e. 40 and below) would be in favour of scrapping clause 28. After all, they are the people who are most involved in the country, as it were. It was infuriating to see the ancient dinosaurs of the press and the Lords spluttering with outrage about this.
By the way, for any people not familiar with the British clause 28, it is a law forbidding local authorities from promoting homosexuality. It basically means that no school is allowed to include homosexuality in their sex education classes. Teachers are only allowed to discuss it if school kids raise the topic themselves. I think that it is precisely this sort of censorship that leads to the continuing predjudice against homosexuality in our society.

I totally agree.

I think this sort of censorship his harmful to the emotional/mental well being of young homosexuals. The suicide rate for homosexual teens is a lot higher than for heterosexuals (I have the figures somewhere, but it would take me days to find them). I think this is because they think that there is something wrong with them, that they aren't normal and no one else is like them. If young people were educated about homosexuality in sex ed classes, they wouldn't feel so isolated.

I wonder how many states in the US have similar laws.

I think another problem with clause 28 was the phrasing, i.e. 'promotion' of homosexuality makes it sound that as soon as the clause is removed, all schools will automatically 'teach children to be gay'. What a completely ridiculous idea.
Do you think it is just the old attitudes and church laws that results in continued homophobia, or is it something more fundamental that gives rise to this prejudice?

This leads to another interesting reason for a forum such as this Foundation. The discussion of certain things that from a Christian point of view are immoral, and therefore not worthy of their discussion past anything other than how sinful they are. The modern basis for branding homosexuality as immoral is based on a specific cultural bias of the ancient Hebrews. It is by no means a universal view. What really cheeses me off beyond anything else is any one assuming that their moral code should be THE moral code for the rest of humanity. I consider myself to be a very moral person, but I do not expect those who live outside my culture to subscribe to the same morals. Now, if you are a Christian (for one example) it would indeed be wrong, and against the wishes of your God to be homosexual. Christians should not, by the dictate of their own scriptures be homosexual. However, for the rest of us not under the demands of their law, it is of no consequence to them. The shepards should look after their own flock, and leave those outside it alone. It should be a Christian Minister's duty to correct those who have placed themselves under their care from sin. But they need to leave us Pagans, Heathens, and Athiests alone! ( Can I hear an "Amen"? )

It reminds me of an observation (paraphrased) of Otter Zell:
Sure Paul said to 'put away thy pagan ways' but he was talking to the Christians. WE *ARE* THE PAGANS!

I think you can probably hear a chorus of 'Amens', ZenMondo. Here's one to begin with, anyway...

The trouble with Christianity is they have this cussed duty to go out there and 'convert the masses', or whatever the expression is, and thus part of their morality is that they *can't* leave the rest of us harmless individuals alone to live our lives - they feel they have a moral obligation to go out there and change the world along their own lines. If only they *would* leave others to get on with their business in peace nobody would mind having them around, and I daresay there would be no use for a forum such as this... If only they could conveniently exorcise the bit from the the Bible that tells them to do this - like they seem to do with so many other passages they find disagreeable - life would be so much pleasanter...

Regards, Lear

Christianity is the epitome of mass brainwashing.

The directive you refer to is known as "The Great Commission". It appears at the end of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Matthew relays Jesus' directive to "teach all nations" (28:19, KJV). The Greek verb there reads, "matheeteusate" (mu, alpha, theta, eta, tau, epsilon, upsilon, sigma, alpha, tau, epsilon) which means "disciple ye".

Mark tells it as "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (16:15, KJV) The greek verb is "keeruxate" (kappa, eta, rho, upsilon, xi, alpha, tau, epsilon) which means "proclaim ye".

Luke tells it more as that as fulfillment of prophecy the story of Christ's death and ressurection will be preached (the greek uses a word meaning "proclaimed") among all nations.

John the best Gospel writer of the bunch only relates Jesus commanding the Apostle Peter to tend his flock.

So as you can see, their Lord's directive is simply to tell his story. It begins and ends there. They are directed to let everyone know the story of Jesus the Christ, his death and ressurection. Jesus did NOT instruct them to hound non-believers. He did NOT instruct them to burn heretics. Nor are there any instructions to CONVINCE anyone of anything.

Jesus did NOT instruct his followers to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world and convert the masses. JUST TO TEACH HIS STORY.

So how come people keep trying to convert lots of other people then? Why can't they leave us alone?
(And why can't schools in GB teach us about other religions other than Christianity? This whole religion thing is supposed to be our chioce!...)

¦M¦

Good point about the teaching of other religions in UK schools. I don't think that there is any specific rule against doing it. Most schools simply shoose not to. It probably comes down to the fact that RE teachers are either a) Christian, or b) have been educated solely in Christianity.
I think that the point about Jesus telling his disciples to preach the Word (without actually forcing people to adhere to it) is fair enough, maybe Jesus did say that to his followers (if you take the gospels to be historically accurate, which is debatable). But that doesn't stop people acting like maniacs today. Seems to me that the concept of Christianity is fine, its just some of the people practising it that are nutters.
Anybody read the Old Testament book, Leviticus? It's great. Just a list of things you are not allowed to do!

If you have a Religious Education class that teaches only xtianity, you don't have religious education; you have Sunday school.

*Grumbles something under his breath about seperating church and state.*

Leviticus is a great read. Not only does it have all those rules, some terrible, some rediculous, but it's also a good source for crass stupidities. Among these are claims that rabbits "chew the cud" and insects are four-legged. My next great "religion is bunk" prject is an expose on the Old Testament that reveals all the callousness, idiocy, bloodshed, and just plain gross items (like the episode when God is appeased by the Philistines when they make him 4 golden hemmorhoids). Needless to say, it is a major work, and will take some time. It would take a lifetime if it weren't for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, though.

ZenMondo, I have a few questions for you:
1. When where Mark, Matthew, Luke and John written (how long after Jesus's death)? How accurate can THAT be?
2. Why do the Four Gospels contradict themselves (2say Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and the other 2 do not.)?
3. I could go on and on and on, as my good friend GargleBlaster can attest.

Ever read the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I highly recommend it to you, ZenMondo...

Sandman, first to answer your questions:

1. When where Mark, Matthew, Luke and John written (how long after Jesus's death)? How accurate can THAT be?

Matthew: Before 70 AD
Mark: about 55 AD
Luke: between 59 and 63 AD
John: 85 AD or a little later

Now the events that are recorded in the Gospels happened around the neighborhood of 30-33 AD (give or take 6 years). So we are talking about 25-50 years after the events that happened. But to use this as an argument against their accuracy is a poor one. It would be akin to saying an account of World War 2 can't be accurate if told today. Should I disbelieve my Grandfather's stories of the South Pacific because it took place 55-60 years ago? Certainly not. If you are going to argue against the accuracy of the Gospels, look for a different way to do it.

FOR EXAMPLE:
All the Gospels are anonymous. Though there is good evidence for the authorship of each Gospel, they are not truley known. Though this is not a good way to discredit the Gospels as there is no way to convince a scholar of alternative authorship.

BUT: Matthew (aka Levi the tax collector) was a follower of Jesus, so his account is probably Accurate. John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", is also probably right on. It differs the most from the other 3, and may have been written by John to answer some issues brought up by the other gospels that were floating around. There may have been several accounts of the life of Jesus now lost because they did not make it into the canon.

That leaves us with Mark and Luke. Both were aimed at the Greek reader. Both Mark and Luke were associates of the "apostle" Paul. Luke was also the authour of the book of Acts, and Luke's gospel and Acts were actually companion books. This biases me towards these tellings as I am coming to the conclusion that Paul usurped early Christianity and pointed it towards the mess we have today. Much of the New Testament is from Paul, or has this Paulist slant. Remember, Paul never even met Jesus. His authority came from a vision, not knowing the man in the flesh.

I tend to beleive that the gospels are probably pretty accurate accounts of who Jesus was and what he was about. But that's OK if they are true, they still do not apply to me no matter how accurate they are. It is about a specific God and his specific people. Not my God, and I am not one of his people, so it does not apply to me.


2. Why do the Four Gospels contradict themselves (2say Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and the other 2 do not.)?

Well I don't recall any of the canonical Gospels making that claim. Though personaly, I am sure it may been a possibility, but not provable one way or the other, so an interesting but fruitless argument. I can't think of any striking contradictions, but it has been a while since I have read through them. But like any eyewitness accounts, everyone flavors what they see. Just because 5 people describe a bank robber differently does not mean there wasn't a bank robber.

If you are gonna argue against Christianity, ya gotta do better than that. Trust me, Christian ideas can be argued against successfully using their own authority (as shown in my earlier post on the great commistion), but many of these arguments have been done to death, and a prepared Christian will have valid answers. But remember this phrase when dealing with them. "That's great, but it does not apply to me."

>Ever read the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I highly recommend it to
>you, ZenMondo...

Nope. Who is it by, and what is it about? Currently I am considering saving my pennies to get "The Myth Maker" wich is about Paul and his claims.

Answers for Ming:

"So how come people keep trying to convert lots of other people then? Why can't they leave us alone?"

Everyone needs a hobby.

Its just a misinterpration of the Great Commision. Its a small minded response to non-conformity. They think they are doing God's work, when they are just pissing off alot of God's creatures.

HERE IS THIS WEEK'S HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT:

Find someone wearing "WWJD" (this stands for What Would Jesus Do?) and ask them for a drink of water. If they look at you like you are crazy, or some other such thing mutter, "I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name..."


"(And why can't schools in GB teach us about other religions other than Christianity? This whole religion thing is supposed to be our chioce!...)"

I thought that Britain had a state religion? Is this still not so?

Yes it does, Christianity, but that doesn't mean to say that we have to be taught xtianity and nothing else, even most churches agree that our individual religion is our own choice and they shouldn't do anything about it (which has something to do with people going round on their own trying to convert others?)... But if our individual religion is going to be our own choice, we should be taught about other main religions so that we have enough knowledge about them all to make our own individual minds up about it...
And (I can't remember who it was who said that all RE teachers where either xian or been taught in xianity only) was wrong, as several of the teachers at my school are atheists and have a fairly good knowledge of other religions. (And there's one, my present teacher, who is a vicar and is busy trying to convince us that there is no God...)
(don't tell anyone this, but I never do HW)

¦M¦

Zen: first you tell us that the authorship is a complete mystery, and then you tell us who the authors are. But as for that comparison with WWII, it doesn't work. We can reconstruct WWII through newspaper articles, film footage from newsreels, official message traffic, letters home, interviews with millions of survivors, and on and on. There is no other source for the gospels, so corroborating evidence is non-existent. The only mention of Jesus in any text outside of these comes from the famed Roman historian Josephus, and there are two compelling arguments that discredit his tale:

1) That book wasn't completed until AD 60 or so, long after the events. Any knowledge might have had would have been second-hand only, and the story of Jesus would have, by then, have evolved into the fantasy tale it became.

2) The entire section that deals with Jesus is a complete fake, inserted into the original text in the 16th century. It completely lacks Josephus' style, and reflects philosophies and ideas that are entirely out of character from him, and we know quite a bit about him, since he was such a prolific writer.

I don't understand how you can say that Matthew's account is perhaps accurate, while Mark's is not. Mark's is the first gospel to be written, and Matthew nearly parrots him. It looks as if Matthew had a copy of Mark on his desk as he wrote. If Mark is unreliable, so is Matthew, for all the same reasons.

"a prepared Christian will have valid answers" - Well, they'll have answers, anyway... sort of...

Holy Blood and Holy Grail is by Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh. I think there's already a review of it up at the Hall of Records annex to the FFFF. Along with some conspiracy theory stuff (which I don't really believe, but I've spoken to others who buy it) there is a nice section dealing with early Christian history, and Judaic culture, and the discrepancies with these and the New Testament. It also has some compelling arguments that support Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, but the info that supports it is not in the NT gospels, but in the Gnostic gospels.