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

To Matholwch

<>

Not good enough...because they used the phrase "You yourselves are witnesses of these things," referring to the life, works, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no way the apostles could get away with preaching anything but the facts of what they and all the people had witnessed.

<>

Acts 3 records Peter and John healing a cripple "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" in public at the temple gate.

<>

None of the above sufficiently explain the transformation from terrified disciples hiding from the jews to passionate disciples willing to suffer and even be martyred for the good news they felt compelled to share.

<<"With all due respect to Math, he does have an agenda; check it out."
Where?>>

For "check it out" read "make independent research of the facts rather than taking Math's word for it"

Your agenda appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be an anti-christian one...do you have a good word for any aspect of the christian faith?

<>

Claim a God-given right to proselytise?...or using the right of free speech to pass on good news, maybe?
Usurp, oppress, destroy, kidnap, brainwash, prosecute wars, hold back science, deliberate falsehood and lies?...Does that include Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, me? What about pagans who become followers of Christ, do they immediately become oppressors, destroyers, warmongers etc.?

<>

So I keep telling you.

<>

I hope that will not be the case, friend. Believe me, I hope there is no such place. But don't let foolish pride keep you out of the kingdom of heaven.

<>

Of course I'm tolerant of your beliefs, and you know it.

<>

Forsooth, thou dost appear to be verily pricked, sire!

Bless you from

mikey2

May I say, Math quite clearly does have an agenda, as does everyone in this thread. If 'hate the sin, love the sinner' has a useful interpretation, its for having a passionate debate and then buying everyone a (digital) beer afterwards.

Now,


<<"None of the above sufficiently explain the transformation from terrified disciples hiding from the jews to passionate disciples willing to suffer and even be martyred for the good news they felt compelled to share.">>

Did I try to answer this in this thread or another? I mentioned heresies and cults and crazy people willing to believe and give up everything whhilst risking death for doing so. Its not unique to Christianity, its not unique to religion. And most of the time, its a silly, sometimes selfish, mostly very sad and foolish thing to do. Hell, I've done some pretty stupid things just on a testosterone high. A lot of people believe in a lot of conflicting things, surely a great lesson to learn when you're young is to check your facts before diving in?

Hi mikey2

Good to see you back in the saddle and letting me have it!

"Not good enough...because they used the phrase "You yourselves are witnesses of these things," referring to the life, works, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no way the apostles could get away with preaching anything but the facts of what they and all the people had witnessed."

As most of their preaching was outside Judaea, across Asia Minor and Greece, how could these people be witnesses? Only in the environs of Jerusalem itself would this apply.

"Acts 3 records Peter and John healing a cripple "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" in public at the temple gate."

OK, got me there :D But they are both later recorded as having moved on to pastures new.

"None of the above sufficiently explain the transformation from terrified disciples hiding from the jews to passionate disciples willing to suffer and even be martyred for the good news they felt compelled to share."

As Bouncy commented it amazing the fervour than men can acquire from their personal philosophies. Ordinary men can be inspired to achieve extraordinary or horrifying things. No supernatural intervention required.

"For "check it out" read "make independent research of the facts rather than taking Math's word for it"

Noggin has known me for some years now and is in himself a tome of independent research into the mind of the Matholwch. He can comment accurately on my agenda's and what I am willing to do to further them.

"Your agenda appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be an anti-christian one...do you have a good word for any aspect of the christian faith?"

I am quite fond of Pelagianism, the Quakers and An Ceile De (the modern Culdees). They have always been more concerned with the message of the man Jesus and many reject aspects of the OT and later books in the NT that contradict the actions and words of that man.

"Claim a God-given right to proselytise?"

Did not Jesus command his disciples to spread the word of God? And is this not the core of the evangelist and missionary movements?

"...or using the right of free speech to pass on good news, maybe?"

And that food news would be 'You are all miserable sinners, so worship me or burn in eternity' yes?

"Usurp, oppress, destroy, kidnap, brainwash, prosecute wars, hold back science, deliberate falsehood and lies?...Does that include Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, me? What about pagans who become followers of Christ, do they immediately become oppressors, destroyers, warmongers etc.?"

Your choice of heroes could have been better. Florence Nightingale was no angel - the real hero of the Crimea was Mary Seacole (a West Indian), and Mother Theresa was a narrow-minded and prejudiced woman who often wouldn't treat non-Christians. She sat on millions of dollars of aid money that she refused to use for the poor.

To your list you could add Simon De Montfort (leader of the Albingensian crusade against the Cathars), Torquemada, Pat Robertson, Popes various, the various Missionaries and evangelicals who forcibly removed aboriginal children from their families to bring them to Christ, James 1st (author of the Hammer of the Witches), Hernandes Cortez, etc. I could go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum here if you like?

<>

"I hope that will not be the case, friend. Believe me, I hope there is no such place. But don't let foolish pride keep you out of the kingdom of heaven."

You cannot have that hope as the inspired words of your God, as recorded in the New Testament, clearly state that there is such a place and I shall go there. It matters not one jot or tittle how I have lived my life, only that I submit to the authority of your God. Sounds so fair to me

Anyhoo I don't see Christianity as being a pick'n'mix religion so you have no choice but to accept this to be the truth.

"Of course I'm tolerant of your beliefs, and you know it. "

How can you be? The very fact I have my beliefs, even if I do nothing about them, denies the core principle of your religion. Monotheism cannot be tolerant.

"Forsooth, thou dost appear to be verily pricked, sire! "

Yup and loving it

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<>

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. Strictly speaking, no, but by this I refer purely to the cognitive impact of faith (any faith) on those who take its implications seriously, and not to any moral aspect of people *of* faith (that is, I'm taking the question in a very circumscribed way.

<>

I thought there was a *duty* to proselytise? And the right of free speech is a sufficiently modern invention to be irrelevant, I think.

<>

Well, yes, particularly in the case of institutional religion, but these have been practised throughout history by those in power, whether for religious or political purposes. In the same way both Christians and non-christians have done good things, too.

The question, which of course can't be answered, is whether any particular religion has produced a net good or bad compared to what would otherwise have happened.

Noggin

Thanks Noggin!
<>

I would say "inspired" means "accepted by the early Christians", but it probably comes to the same thing, and ok, I think your sentence is more or less a correct formulation of the problem. In the end theology, although rational, is reason applied to revelation, i.e. one starts with faith in something.

One might start by considering the historical claims of the Gospels, then if you conclude that it really happened (I mean, only in the essentials so far, including miracles) you might conclude that Jesus founded a church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and then you might conclude that this church therefore had authority to discern which books were the real thing (a non-technical term).

"The very fact I have my beliefs, even if I do nothing about them, denies the core principle of your religion."



There's nothing in Christianity which says anything about other beliefs, except that they're wrong. You may deny the core principles of Christianity, but your simple existance does not cause anyone else to deny anything.



"Monotheism cannot be tolerant."

Could you please define the word /tolerant/, as used in this context?

TRiG.

When monotheist religions are in secular power, there has in no country in the world been a toleration of other belief or of other believers on an equal footing with the 'state' religion.

The only reason this is no longer true in the UK is that the state religion is only partially in control of the governent. And even here, the law of blasphemy exists specifically to protect only the Church of England, not even other Christian denominations.

If Christianity and especially the C of E is tolerant, then why do the bishops in the House of Lords not campaign for the removal of t his inequality?

And if Christianity is a tolerant faith, then tell me why the bishops and archbishops in the House of Lords have not voluntarily given up their places and asked to be subject to election...

--

Jez

Well, since mich2ael's religion is not 'in secular power' at the moment, Matholwch's point seems irelevant.

And, are polytheistic religions necessarily any better?

TRiG.

Matholwch

<>

I referred to the very earliest days of the church in Jerusalem, which would have been full of eye-wutnesses.

<>

But such a sudden transformation of an entire group? What significant thing could happen to them to account for the transformation though?

<>

I'll check them out when I've got a moment.

<>

That would be bad news.

<>

I'm sure she had some redeeming characteristics.

<>

You obviously met her, I didn't, so I bow to your superior judgement.

<>

I don't know half these people. You must presumably have evidence that they were truly christian people (in more than mere label) or you would not have used their names. Post the evidence and I'll be seriously impressed. (p.s. its not enough to say they came from a christianized society!)

<>

What is this "core principle of my religion" that means I cannot be tolerant of yours? The New Testament instructs christians to "always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have, and do this with gentleness and respect," no intolerance commanded.

<>

I struggle with the doctrine of hell, Math. There's nothing in the bible that says I can't hope it doesn't exist. When I first became a believer my life had been a living hell so I had no problem believing that there was such a place. 25 years on and the concept is terrifying and awful, you'll agree. Christ gave us stark warnings though: "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away, it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to be cast into hell." He said other similar things, and because He said them, I intend to take them seriously. Also the very fact that the Lord of Heaven and earth needed to die to secure our salvation, emphasizes to me that he really meant it. So I urge you, be reconciled to God, He is full of mercy and will not turn away from you if you return to Him.

Noggin

<>

You won't agree with me here but I think your atheistic stance is a position of faith. Having weighed all the evidence you've taken this faith position, that God is non-existent. (which I respect)

<>

I try to make it a habit of never defending institutional religion. It often has alarmingly little to do with real living faith.

Kind regards

Mikey2, putting the 'fun' back into fundamentalism

You're asking Math for documentary evidence that certain people are/were Christian. For this, you need a definition of Christian which (a) makes sense in non-mystical terms and (b) can be independently observed. If you're going to define a Christian as one who has 'been saved', others can quite rightly respond that your definition is to them meaningless and therefore useless.

Be careful also to avoid circular reasoning. If you're going to define a Christian as one who (a) believes in Jesus and (b) doesn't do nasty things, you cannot then point out that Christians don't do nasty things and think you've proved anything.

TRiG.

TRiG

Good point.

Briefly, John the Apostle said: "He who claims to love God but hates his brother is a liar."

Helpful?

I've got to go now, see you later

mikey2

Hi mikey2

"But such a sudden transformation of an entire group? What significant thing could happen to them to account for the transformation though?"

Ask the followers of Rev. Moon, Western Hare Krishna' and Scientology. All cults with a worldwide following in a single generation.

"I'll check them out when I've got a moment."

I particularly recommend An Ceile De if you'd like to understand more about 'Celtic Christianity'.

<>

"That would be bad news."

It is an accurate summary of the message of the Bible I believe (?).

<>

"You obviously met her, I didn't, so I bow to your superior judgement."

No, but I have met Indians who did. The Indian view of her is quite different that peddled by the Catholic Church.

"I don't know half these people. You must presumably have evidence that they were truly christian people (in more than mere label) or you would not have used their names. Post the evidence and I'll be seriously impressed. (p.s. its not enough to say they came from a christianized society!)"

Simon de Montford was a French noble, said to be a very pious man, who took up the cross at the personal request of the Pope to wipe the heresy of Catharism from France.

Torquemada was a Catholic priest given the task of re-Catholicsing Spain. Again another pious and intelligent man who dedicated his entire life to the Church. He led the original Spanish Inquisition.

Pat Robertson was a highly influential American evangelical minister who spent his life in the service of his congregation. He also railed against homosexuality, islam and paganism is a way that would have him banged up in Britain.

As for the Australian Missionaries I suggest you read The Rabbit Fence.

James 1st also oversaw the creation of the offical Bible of the protestant movement - the KJV.

Cortez brought the cross to Mexico and destroyed everything of value there. The church he brought was seldom less brutal than the Aztec civilisation they swept away.

"What is this "core principle of my religion" that means I cannot be tolerant of yours?"

Exodus 20:2-17
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 you shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Jesus commanded that his disciples should follow the laws of his father and this is the first and most important. Note the injustice encapsulated in this law, for if I am a pagan to my dying day he shall also punish my children to the fourth generation.

"I struggle with the doctrine of hell, Math. There's nothing in the bible that says I can't hope it doesn't exist."

Would you deny the words of your God, as inspired to the writers of the Bible?

"Also the very fact that the Lord of Heaven and earth needed to die to secure our salvation, emphasizes to me that he really meant it. So I urge you, be reconciled to God, He is full of mercy and will not turn away from you if you return to Him."

Er no he will actually. According to Revelations those who will be saved have already been chosen and no deeds on earth can change that decision. This is the word of your God.

There is no fun in fundamentalism

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate .

Hi TRiG

"Well, since mich2ael's religion is not 'in secular power' at the moment, Matholwch's point seems irelevant."

In the United Kingdom the Church of England is the established church of the state, and our Head of State is also the head of that Church. Technically the Church can refuse to crown a new monarch and then the succession is screwed. Instant constitutional crisis. I know of senior churchmen who are pondering this should Charles get more fervent in his 'Defneder of Faiths' belief.

It has permanent seats in upper house of our legislature. Compared to France or the USA or even Turkey, we are a religious state not a secular one.

It is true that the power of this church has been seriously eroded over the last century, but we seem to have a set of New Puritans in power who are once more creating protectionist legislation for the church, and other approved religions in the UK.

In other words, they are not gone yet... anyone fancy storming the barricades?

"And, are polytheistic religions necessarily any better?"

I'm trying hard to think of a state dominated by a polytheist religion in the modern world. Even Hinduism is essentially monotheist so I'm stuck for a reasonable comparison. Come on guys help me out here - name a few states in which polytheism is dominant eh?

From my experience of modern British polytheism I doubt you could enough of them to agree for five minutes to really create any lasting or dangerous policy of intolerance (imagine thirty weasels in a sack and you have a reasonable view of a pagan conference).

We are a serious bunch of losers in that regards.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I shouldn't worry too much about hell. If you opt to get cremated there will be nothing left of you to burn in hell.

as I've posted elsewhere, if yer worried about hell, switch to the CofE - they don't accedpt it.
Well, rather they see Hell as "a state of non-being and not one of eternal torment,".
So in the anglican tradition atheists really do die and nothing happens - nice to know they agree with us

(p.s. I know, although it is official church doctrine, it doesn't seem to have penetrated the rank and file very far. Especially since it was decided back in 1996!)

Math

<>

Common ground maybe?!

<>

That's third hand then...I'm not sure I should trust this info...less reliable than the New Testament! Do we know that Mother Theresa existed?hehehe

The people you refer to: De Montfort, Torquemada et al, they sound like a load of villains. In fact the justified anger that you barely conceal suggests to me that you are closer to the Kingdom of God than you might care to admit. He is a God who hates injustice, oppression, hypocrisy. I reckon God is very pleaed with the sentiments you hold. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Good for Matholwch the Druid!

<>

Because you've not got the quote quite correct, its coloured your whole thinking here. Jesus in fact said(according to the Gospel of Matthew): '"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the rest of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."'

My liberal translation: 'All the rest of the Law and the Prophets should be interpreted in the light of these two commandments.'
Because of Jesus we are no longer under the law but under grace(God's undeserved favour and mercy) 'Mercy triumphs over judgement!' James 2:13

<>

Being human I am tempted to interpret it in a way that is easier to swallow. As I said, I wrestle with these issues. In theory I believe them, but in practice, I confess that my life seems to indicate otherwise.

<>

Math, christians have been arguing over the doctrine of predestination for years...basically no one understands it..(!)..don't write yourself off on the strength of a doctrine that no theologian has yet been able adequately to explain to the rest of us!! The good news is for "whosoever believes"! Don't forget that.

<>

(I'm not really a fundamentalist)

I'm off to check out An Ceile De.

Peace from

mikey2, putting the 'mental' back into fundamentalism.

mich2ael,
I just want to say that I admire your way of expressing yourself, and to thank you for putting into words things I can't express anywhere near as well, especially "My liberal translation: 'All the rest of the Law and the Prophets should be interpreted in the light of these two commandments.'
Because of Jesus we are no longer under the law but under grace(God's undeserved favour and mercy) 'Mercy triumphs over judgement!' James 2:13"

and "Math, christians have been arguing over the doctrine of predestination for years...basically no one understands it..(!)..don't write yourself off on the strength of a doctrine that no theologian has yet been able adequately to explain to the rest of us!!smiley The good news is for "whosoever believes"! Don't forget that."

Math you know I've tried to tell you something similar for years! (Back in 2003)

Vicky

Hi mikey2

Woohoo! Scriptural debate - my favourite

"Because you've not got the quote quite correct, its coloured your whole thinking here. Jesus in fact said(according to the Gospel of Matthew): '"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the rest of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."'

Really? And how about Matthew Chapter 5, in which we read:

"5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

So Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. And then Jesus goes on to say that the Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever.

"5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

And finally...

"5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Of course the fate of those who don't follow Jesus is well documented in Thessalonians:
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Predestination is an interesting thought:

Thessalonians again:
2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

And onto Ephesians:
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (1:4-5, 11)
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

And my last selection is from Romans on Tolerance:
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Oh and a caution from Romans for you, Della and Andrew:
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

There is no such thing as a liberal interpretation of the Word, in fact any interpretation is coverd by Revelation:
22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Oh dear...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

And a special caution to Vicky/Della, while we're on the subject:

Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.



F

maybe if u dont believe in 'god',u could possibly be a pagan...we come from the earth,then return when we die...but who says we actually die? where do memories and thoughts and nightmares go? they are not 'physical'.