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

Greetings Freezingweasel!
Oh boy am I going to love having you here. Alji, Noggin keep your heads down, this Druid's going in and it ain't going to be pretty!

So:
"The bible IS true in its entirety. "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16 The consequence of this: Scripture is infallible, since God is perfect. And it does say "ALL.".
Really? You actually believe that?

You obviously have not being paying attention in scripture class my boy, nor have you done any research whatsoever into the history of the development of your sacred texts. One thing we druids are (besides being colossal know-it-alls and pains in the backsides), or try to be, are scholars.

I don't think I'm going to give the normal 7,000 line lesson in biblical errancy. I don't think it fair to the rational christians and other people on this list. I suggest that you type "biblical errancy" into your search engine and have a browse.

The problem, child, with attaching your whole belief system to such a parcel of accumulated dogma and prejudice is that it will let you down.
The issue of divine infallibility is one that has haunted the Jesuits (my school-teachers, and that's a clue to those of you who know Jesuit teaching methods as to my debating style ) for generations. For if God is infallible, and the Bible "is God-breathed", then it too, as your logic suggests must also be infallible. However, if the holy scriptures can be found to be fallible then the whole house comes tumbling down. It's a bit like the bumblebee argument proposed by the excellent Mr.Adams.

Does this make sense to you, if not I'll use bigger letters?

OK, are you ready for it, a direct quote from scripture:
"....and a bat is a bird....".
Oh dear is this evidence of fallibility?
Could your Bible be fallible?
Could your God be fallible? Ooops!

I'm not trying to shake your belief, or turn you away from a path of goodness or light. But WAKE UP! Try approaching your spirituality with an open mind, uncluttered by 4,500 years of codified dogma. You will find that the divine spirit, in whatever form you find comfortable or acceptable, is there in you and all things.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

M I was looking up Bran the Blessed yesterday and whose name did I find?

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

The World English Bible has it as

2 Timothy 3:16
Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,

2 Timothy 3:17
that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely to every good work.


So form this we can say that all faiths contain some truth.

The Bhagavad Gita Chapter 9, Verse 26: (5000 years old at least).
Whoever offers Me with devotion and a pure mind (heart),

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

a leaf, a flower, a fruit or a little water - I accept this offering.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Hi Alji.

Who did you find then?

Matholwch, King of Ireland, husband of Branwen, brother in law to Bran and enemy of Efnissien by any chance?

BTW if you're Alji, can I be Ginger? All we need to do then is find our own Biggles (maybe Noggin will volunteer?).

Tallyho, chocks away!

Blessings,
Matholwch RFC, DFC, DipSo and bar, /|\.

Royal Yoga, contains eight distinctive levels and practices.

Conduct of life in relation to others- avoiding untruth, theft, injury to others, sensuality and greed.

Conduct towards oneself- cleanliness, tranquillity, austerity, study and devotion.

Stretching, bending, balancing and sitting exercises.

Breathing exercises that aim to control the mind.

Withdrawing the attention from the body and the senses.

Concentration of the mind.

Meditation.

Uninterrupted contemplation of Reality.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

I've always wondered what those levels were in yoga, but I never thought to look it up - massive negligence.

I'm sorry to see that Hoovooloo has left the thread, but at least we won't get any more massive (and counterproductive - buzzword alert, i will eat a poisoned peanut before the day is out) arguments between him and David. Neither of them seemed able to take the other's words in the context in which they were intended. They nit-picked - something that I do regularly, but normally forget to comment on later. I'm sure that if either of them ever meet in real life, they will carefully claw each other's eyeballs out using teflon spoons whilst chewing on their ears in a frenzy of spiteful pique. Calm down, read the subject line - it's a /debate/!

Then again, they do have a long legacy of nasty, fruitless encounters. It may have seemed like much more. Please, people, don't take sides. David is my friend. I like him, and he means well. I'd like to call Hoovooloo a friend, but I've never met him, so I won't presume to say such a thing - though he, too, means well. They just got a bit nasty, and it all turned into an insult contest - nobody's perfect, and I prefer not to judge.

I'm going to bury all this in the past, along with the Crusades and the Atom Bomb.

Fundamentalists: I could do with a definition here. Perhaps it just means someone with strong views; but every time it has been used here, it seems to carry the same message as Communism - superficially nice and cosy, but with a nasty underlying philosophy. Is that it?

And I /hate/ that quote - religion is the opiate of the people. Quotes, like so many other things, are made to carry the founder's message, and Marx meant to abolish religion completely - he was going to remove their fundamental rights, alongside many other things. I recall Tommy Aquinas once said something like this - that as a figure of speech is taken more for granted, it comes closer to its true meaning.

On the state of biblical accuracy and translation ('day' being just an example): I was searching for the actual quote, and I decided, on a whim, to remove Aquinas's name - I only got two results for 'Aquinas "figure of speech" "its true meaning"' - thus, I tried just '"figure of speech" "its true meaning"'. I find it very telling that, of the first 10 results, 8 referred to the Christian Scriptures. I didn't bother to look at the next 83, but I imagine they were very similar. Try it, it's a perfect demonstration of the fact that, no matter how much work we put into them, the scriptures are often going to remain unreadable. Incidentally, I would love to read the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, but most of the scriptures were, indeed, lost - and thus what are called 'lost books'. Also, the Catholic church has a lot more than gold locked up in them there cellars. I've heard (by word of mouth - where else?) that they are in possession of scriptures that contradict certain fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. But then, even if we had the full monty of scriptures, it's still likely that most of the faiths around would simply reject them as fraudulent or useless, or envelop them in a comforting blanket of explanation - just like they do now.

Furthermore, I don't think that people have a realistic view of this whole 'hell' thing...

Finally: science alone is insufficient for morality. Otherwise, we would decide that morals were artificial inventions of society and therefore useless. There is no more reason to hold human life sacred than a stick of chalk, as I have pointed out before. Ethics and science are, by nature, separate.

For anyone inclined to take my words out of context, perhaps they could note that I am speaking of 'science' as a belief system, and not research into or applications of science. Those are part of society, which can use both science and ethics to its own advantage. Even if sometimes they throw up unpleasant limitations.

But then, I'm not a fundamentalist...

- Jordan

Hi Jordan .
Fundamentalist: I too have heard many definitions and of course have come to my own...
To me, a fundamentalist (in the context of religion) is someone who takes dogma/scripture utterly literally. A person who will pursue the furtherance of that dogma/scripture without reference to common sense or morality.
They consider anyone who does not accept their stance as corrupted. This is of course very dangerous because such a view devalues the non-believer and allows the fundamentalist to believe that he can treat them differently. In some cases this allows them to believe they can injure or even kill the non-believer even if their dogma/scripture prohibits this sort of response. You don't believe in their code so you are not protected by it.
Fundamentalism is not just restricted to religion. It can be found amongst extreme political viewpoints as well, such as National Socialism, Soviet Communism, McCarthyism, the Japanese Imperial Cult and the Khymer Rouge.
Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

But the people of the time might have classified what they knew as "birds" as simply "animals that fly". So, when looked at in the light of the culture from which the text arose it is correct.

Oooops! But we're not allowed interpretation, "scripture is correct, look, it says so right here in this scripture". The bible is "God-breathed" (and that in itself is such a vague phrase it could mean anything you want it to mean), and therefore flawless.

"Aaack! My house of cards!"

Ste

Malthowch: Thanks for that definition - it's an excellent description of the term. It's also clear from your description that it isn't necessarily dangerous - just that it can be, in some cases. I agree, most fundamentalists are pretty nasty people... BTW, I have a burning desire to put an 'i' in between the 'w' and the 'ch' in your name. Please, don't be too hard on me if give in to my carnal, latinate mind.
Alij: Nice scripture - I've heard that one before, and it still strikes me as - well - nice.
Ste: Nooooo! My religion is falling apart!
I have a bit of a problem with defending the opposition too - like the whole fine tuning thing - it seems to me that if the constants weren't right to form atoms they would have formed something else. I mean, nature and life do seem to have a knack for organisation.
Doesn't it just make stuff rather hard to argue?

- Jordan

Jordan, Maltholwch - just think of the w as oo as in moon and the ch as in Scottish loch.

Maltholwch, why did you use this spelling instead of the Welsh - Mallolwch or is it a silly question?


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Fundamentalism: I think Matholwch's definition is pretty much spot on. In my experience of arguing with fundamentalists the phrase strikes a real chord.
A case in point: Posting 366 And from the same post
But it was his will, right? So why did he will it, if he wasn't happy about it? And don't quote free will at me. If we have free will then we can do what WE will, which means that things happen that are NOT willed by God.
Or again: (This is at least consistent with <God is omnipresent&gt. What does this MEAN? It seems to mean that the physical universe is the same thing as God, which is a logically empty conception.
Empty assertions. Where's the EVIDENCE? How would the universe be DIFFERENT if it was/wasn't true?
The universe is what it is. These claims add nothing to the facts.
Wishful thinking, and an abdication of our own moral responsibility to boot.
I know where the argument goes next, too. (Posting 374) Factual correction: the HISTORY of the universe had a beginning. (See my post on entropy earlier in this thread.} In the absence of any evidence of a creation, why postulate a creator? (And where did He come from? Oh well, not everything requires a creator. So how do you know the universe does?}
And of course So we should all stop thinking.

Noggin

It you fancy a bit of sacrificing, how about this;

Leviticus 1:11
And he is to put it to death on the north side of the altar before the Lord: and Aaron's sons, the priests, are to put some of the blood on and round the altar.

Leviticus 1:12
And the offering is to be cut into its parts, with its head and its fat; and the priest is to put them in order on the wood which is on the fire on the altar:

Leviticus 1:13
But the inside parts and the legs are to be washed with water; and the priest will make an offering of all of it, burning it on the altar: it is a burned offering, an offering made by fire, for a sweet smell to the Lord.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

I'll have to get a new pair of glasses. Too many l's Matholwch!


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

We're digressing from the point. The question was not how many l's there should be in Matholwch. The issue is whether God is fact or fiction.

There is no justification for the existence of God, other than in venerated -- but nonetheless unprovable -- ancient texts.

Any half-educated person would already have reached the obvious conclusion stated by an earlier poster: "the people of the time might have classified what they knew". That, in a nutshell, is why no ancient religious text can, or should, be taken at face value. It merely represents what was known (or unknown) at the time it was written.

Furthermore, all the major religions (notwithstanding their otherwise implacable insistence on the veracity of the chosen version of the "book") proffer loopholes to suit the occasion. In the case of Catholics, confession springs to mind. In the case of Orthodox Jews, it's "ervu".

If God (according to whatever "book" is chosen) has supposedly declared himself averse to a whole range of minor and major pecadillos, how come that his earthly representatives can devise a workaround yet still claim adherence to the "Word of God"?

God is fiction. Full stop.

I've read the latest posts, but have been working backwards as I wrote my reply, and I'm sure there were other things I wanted to reply to, but it is ten to midnight, so I'm going to post this and get to bed.

Post 379:


I assume this was what Hoovooloo considered to be the 'evidence of evolution'. But people considering this seem to just think 'Evolution explains this fact' and think no further. But really, creationism also explains this fact. Take a ZX Spectrum and a PC. Of course, in the literal, biological sense, the PC did not evolve from the Spectrum. However, they have similarities in their basic design (eg. Memory, a central CPU, transistor circuitry), and in a way, you could say that they are related. But this is because they had designers who, noting that certain principles and devices worked well in the earlier one, went on to use the same principles and similar, but improved, devices in the later one. So whether you believed in a creator or not, you would expect there to be similarities. Since both theories predict this fact, the fact doesn't really constitute evidence for either theory (at least, not one theory as opposed to the other. You can still say it is evidence for BOTH theories, if there is any third, alternative theory.).

Post 380:



I'm glad you mentioned Judgement Day. It isn't just the time when God determines who is good enough and who isn't. It's another time when the word day isn't a literal day, but refers to a time when those who died without hearing the truth about God will get another chance to prove themselves, which is why the Bible speaks of 'a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous' (Acts 24:15)

Post 391:

God doesn't determine our individual actions. If he did, then just about everything that ever happened in the Bible would be illogical.
<Or again: (This is at least consistent with <God is omnipresent&gt. What does this MEAN? It seems to mean that the physical universe is the same thing as God, which is a logically empty conception.>
It is a feasible concept that what we refer to as the physical universe just exists in Gods imagination. After all, if a being is omnipotent and omniscient, then what is the difference between reality and his imagination? Still, lets not have any discussion on this, because whether it is true or not makes no difference to anything.

Indeed. Existence is, in itself, evidence of a creator of some kind. This is just restating the principle of cause and effect. However, this principle is determined by what we see in our universe. There is no reason to assume the principle applies outside of our universe, or to our universe itself. So no, there isn't any reason (apart from, possibly, depending on your understanding, the Bible) to believe that God was necessary to create the universe. It is the things within the universe that he is necessary to explain.

I think you've misunderstood the sentence you are quoting, because the section you quote conveys a completely different thought to the sentence as a whole.

Insight:

The 'evidence of evolution' spans science from palaeontology to ecology to genomics to molecular biology. The entirity of biology would be useless without evolution as its backbone. The theory of evolution was a result of converging lines of evidences throughout the various fields that constitute science. Evidences such as the *systematic* (that word cannot be emphasised enough, taking just two things and comparing them, saying that they are related would not be enough to sythesise a whole theory) similarities between all life-forms at multiple levels (molecular - genetic - cellular - anatomical - morphological - behavioural), the fossil record and from what we can experiment with and observe in DNA proves beyond any doubt that evolution happens.

'Jack' believes in 'gravitationalism'; that gravity comes from a God that he thinks lives in the centre of the Earth, using just his will alone to hold everything to the planet. If you were to ask him how he came about this position of faith Jack could reply "You're sitting in your seat aren't you? Are you floating about the room? No, the evidence of gravitationalism is all around you, it's right under your nose!" Jack could happily say this and use gravity as "scientific" evidence of his faith. That doesn't mean it has any basis is objective reality as observed by science. There is no difference between gravitationalism and creationism.

If we were designed, then why do we have an organ that used to digest cellulose (and still does in some of mammalian relatives) but now has no function? The only thing the appendix does is get infected and possibly kill you? Is your God that cruel? Why do whales and dolphins have tiny, useless pelvic bones? Why do hundreds of species of cave-dwelling organisms have eyes that do not function? I could go on for hours of examples of "bad design" if we were in fact designed (and sometimes I do). There are also no examples of paradigm shifts in design that we can see from machines that humans designed. There is no equivalent of the improvement of tubes to transistors, from propellor- to jet-powered aeroplanes. And evolution predicts both of these facts: It can only evolve from what came before.

Creationism is anthroporphism and only looks at life at a superficial level. It also looks at the bible at a superficial level (i.e., literal meaning only allowed). Perhaps that is why fundamentalists are creationists, they are only capable of addressing the obvious and refuse to look any deeper. As I said before: "man creates complex stuff, we are complex, therefore something must have created us".

Ste

Going back to the L's - It is a question of miss-reading or miss- interperating which leads to confussion. Which Bible do you read -

New American Standard, American Standard, King James Version, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Gothic, Basic English Bible, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Webster's Bible, World English Bible, Weymouth, Young's Literal, Albanian, Bulgarian, Cebuano, Chinese, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish, French Jerusalem, French Louis II, Gaelic, German Elberfelder, Haitian Creole, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Korean, Latvian NT, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Spanish Reina Valera, Spanish Biblia de las Americas, Swahili NT, Swedish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Parallel Bible, Matthew Henry, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Naves Topical Bible and many more.

As I have tried to point out, what is angel in one is prince in another and where one says Hades another says Seol. In some versions the word Hell is nowhere to be seen.
Jesus never calls himself the Son of God (A forign concept to Jews) but always the Son of Man. When moses asked God about His name, he said "I am that I am" and so The Hebrew word YHWH (the unspoken name of God) came into existance (Jehovah is a corruption of this name).
Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" but this phrase can only be found in the gospel of John. Why not the other three?


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

FreezingWeasel, I assume you're quoting (no time to read the backlog). I have to agree with your doubts, tho' not wholly... I am a Christian, but it worries me that some Christians come close to Bibliolatry! The scripture quoted above which says that 'all scripture is God-breathed' has an alternate translation given as a footnote in the RSV, which makes ALL the difference - it says 'all scripture WHICH is God-breathed is profitable" etc. Of course that raises the question of how you *tell* which parts are...

Taking verses out of context has led to horrendous schism and many 'cults' (which of course don't consider themselves such at all).My solution is to take a test - a scripture belongs if it fits the overall stance/nature of the rest (Epistles for instance.)

Actually, that's what I believe happens. I have been a Christian for many years, but not an entirely happy one, and now I have incorporated a belief in universal salvation by way of reincarnation into my Christian theology. Not just because I want to, but because I believe it's correct.

I don't think God is filtering out the intelligent at all. People have many and varied reasons for not accepting Christianity as and when they hear of it. Being 'too intelligent' is, to me, just an excuse on their part, one that makes them seem superior to us poor saps who are believers! I believe people reincarnate until they hear and accept Jesus as saviour, then they don't need to any more! Some Christian reincarnationsist say that they continue to reincarnate, as they must achieve a higher and better Christian life to qualify. Thinking of the kind of Christian I am, I can believe that!

-- quoted
I don't think God is filtering out the intelligent at all. People have many and varied reasons for not accepting Christianity as and when they hear of it. Being 'too intelligent' is, to me, just an excuse on their part, one that makes them seem superior to us poor saps who are believers!
--

I make no claim to be more intelligent than a true believer of any faith. Einstein is widely accepted as believing in God, and as being intelligent. I have no reason to believe that I could have thought up generel reletivity in his shoes, or that his belief in God ws a fabrication. It makes no sense to judge a person's worth on one factor (unless it's that they're a crazed killer with no justification) I twould be interesting to read Einstein's thoughts on religion. Is this known to be in any biography of his?

I recognize that what is taught early in life sticks, and is accepted unquestionably by the most otherwise rational people. Most of my teachers have been Christians, and some of the most "Christian" teachers have taught me rational thinking. Just because you don't question everything doesn't mean you're mentally bankrupt. (I've never given serious thought to whether a belt or suspenders is better, it really doesn't matter to me. Both seem to work well enough... I know we're hurting the environment, but I haven't been planting trees (If deforestation is as serious a problem as I often hear, whats the predicted decade/century when we suffocate? No more cows, they breath too much!))

Children aren't *stupid* to believe in Santa Claus when their parents tell the kids about good saint Nick, at this point the kid has no serious reason to doubt their parents and realizes there's more to the world than they currently know. I expect most adults figure if their religion was wrong, it would have been crushed by now, much as we no longer see offerings to Zeus on a regular basis. Like kids, their problem is too much faith, only in society, not parents.

What I meant by God filtering the intelligent is that the setup "Believe this set of beliefs that I know looks unlikely, and that look pretty much just like various other sets of beliefs equally unproven (but wrong)" comonly explained to me by those saying why I should follow their faith offers no proof.

To a non-believer, a person who was brought up believing in Christianity and who believes it firmly without being able to provide evidence looks exactly like a Hindu brought up with Hinduism who doesn't question his faith despite a lack of evidence. What evidence can one offer me to prove it is more correct than another. If God is omniscient he realizes that intelligent decisions on important matters require proof, and for as seemingly arbitrary a choice as religion A vs B no one attempting to operate in that manner (who confronts this question) will take a side until there is hard evidence.

I start a nightclub, you can only get in if you wear the right colored-shirt. This much is public knowledge, what color is not. Everyone wants in. A stranger comes to town, and also wants in. Everyone tells him to wear a different color, and none can justify thier choice. This stranger, not knowing me has no reason to believe that I would be so strange as to filte based on shirt-color, and might well wear a shirt with two colors, meaning he's out even if one is right. If he ignores the color rule (which makes no sense, and which I never told him) and walks up is he unreasonable for assuming that this is irrelevent or else the preferred color would have been mentioned on the sign, such as "Club Blue" or "Club Inferno, admittence only to those who show their fiery nature?

If I want everyone to come that can, I should make the desired color obvious. Not seeing anything obvious I am undecided, and will dare to call any supreme being that would set up this situation who truly wants all to come who can as not being rational. (Why not, if their nature is that much different from mine, its only a matter of time before I tick them off and am banished to eternal punishment anyway, might as well ge it over with) I maintain that unless my analogy about the trails was inaccurate (if so, please explain) setting this up *will* keep out people who apply intelligence to *the decision of what religion to follow* and randomly select winners from those who decide randomly (or have their path randomly chosen by accident of birth, and never questioning)


now 2 other bits

----- quote
Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,

2 Timothy 3:17
that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely to every good work.

So form this we can say that all faiths contain some truth.
-----
How? All that jumps at me right now are the words *which is in righteousness* an important disclaimer that proves the word of God itself need not lead to right action, it only does so in the proper context, after all the Devil is supposed to be able to quote scripture

and
----- quote
Finally: science alone is insufficient for morality. Otherwise, we would decide that morals were artificial inventions of society and therefore useless. There is no more reason to hold human life sacred than a stick of chalk, as I have pointed out before. Ethics and science are, by nature, separate.
-----
This is until we use science to figure out what th ideal world would be to make us happy. Do we want an ordered world of laws, or a chaotic, back-stabbing world? We get more stuff with chaos (if we're strong/lucky) but live longer in the world of order. A society created to work in the most efficient manner will say not to kill indiscriminantly, if you do you will scare others who will band against you to preserve their own lives, more of society lives, and your own chances of living are increased by you not killing.

Any rule that benefits society as a whole will be in the ethics, which would be followed if for no other reason than swift and memorable punishment meant to leave the impression that society only works when it is subscribed to by all, so do nothing to interrupt it. In such a society we would have nothing *but* mob justice, as it would be illogical to better outfit one group for keeping the peace than anohter, as this pus them in a position of being able to disrupt society for their benefit.

A scentific mindset may be used to arrive at a good government. One town is chosen as a test area, various laws are tried and the theories that result in the most pleasent societies are adopted elsewhere until a better law or governing system comes along