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

I expect theres a good reason why not but I can't think of it at the moment

at least we would know we were worshipping an imaginary being unlike some people

Hey, Nighthoover exists, we are just awaiting his return.



Mel

ALL MIGHTY ZARQUAN!!!
cheers
ford

If there really, really, really is a god I wish he'd smoke a better grade of pot.

I have a few theories on the whole subject...
I grew up in a household where my mother was a devout Methodist (and still is). I understand the reasoning for man to worship a being higher up than us. One of my major problems with (organized) religion is that noone bothered to correct me when I made a statement that was historicly incorrect, as told by the Bible. In my youth, I and the est of my Sunday school class were asked to note Miracles performed by Jesus in his lifetime. I list the usual...walking water, water to wine, loaves and fishes, etc... But, I added one that noone corrected me on. I noticed an omission from the Bible that, the younger me, dismissed as a Mircle. Jesus walked across a river at age 15 and, upon reaching the other shore, was 28... It was after this point that NOONE in this Church was going to aid me on the journey for the truth.
As I grew older, I decided that I could learn more on my own... And have!!! Yes, I do believe in a God. The quickest way to disinterest a Bible toter is to ask them "What page is that on?!? Don't look for it. If you can qoute Book, Chapter, and Verse, then you should know what page it's on... And what page is that on in THIS Bible?!? If every Bible is different, then how do you know that YOU have the right one?!?" The Bible makes for an interesting storybook, but it has been revised too many times to be COMPLETELY ACCURATE!!! It's impossible to know the whole truth. Scientists aren't always right. That's why they compile theories and hypothosis. They guess, just like everyone else. I cam neither prove or disprove the existence of God, it makes you wonder?!? I agree with Robin Williams... There is a God and He's a stoner.... I mean, look at the Platypus... "OK..Gabriel.. Come here.. What I'm gonna do is take a beaver and put a ducks bill on it.. Now, it's a mammal, but it lays eggs... Now, going to create a guy named Darwin... Hey, Darwin.... (flips him the bird)...
To anyone that has read Good Omens, "Meeting God, you'd have the sense that you were sitting down at a table to play poker with a guy, who smiles constantly and doesn't say anything, and you're playing in the dark... So you don't even know what cards you have, let alone what HE's holding... Ineffables... Go figure..." To say (if you believe), God's got a plan, and noone knows what that plan is... And trying to figure out the ineffable (unspeakable,inexpressible,too sacred for utterance) plan will be driven to the point of exhaustion/madness, because God's got a damn good poker face.
The other thing that bothers me is the use of the word people. Anyone who has read h2g2 couldn't possibly be PEOPLE... People suck... People are the ones that are in charge. They control everything that we pepples (anti-people) do for the rest of our lives. They tell us we're wrong for going against the norm.... What is NORMAL?!? If you and I have a different opinion of normal, then who's right?!? If normal is the yardstick that guages our civilization, then who's taking the measurements?!? That's the great thing about society.... Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
The Universe- size: Infinite
-Life: None... In an infinite Universe you have an infinite number of worlds in an infinite number of Galaxies... And since not all of these worlds are inhabitted, then you have a finite number of inhabitted worlds... And any number divided into infinity is as next to nothing as 0... Therefore, anyone you meet along the way is just the product of a deranged imagination!!!

<>
I am sorry, I don't want to sound harsh, but that's silly. Apply that logic to any book pubbed in many editions, Lord of the Rings for instance, and ask me what *page* the Scouring of the Shire begins on - and I can't tell you, but that doesn't make by movie tie-in edition any less reliable as a text than my neighbours Gollancz copy she got in 1962!
<>
I think you're mddling up different editions, with different translations. Bible translation is a complicated subject, but more recent translations aim for greater accuracy, as more and older manuscripts are discovered.
<>
No, not revised in the sense of materially altered at all. If you get hold of say, the RSV, it has variant readings in the margin. You can check out different interpretations right there.

I believe that God the Father God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Sprit do exist I also believe in Angels My faith has helped me through several difficult patches in life I also believe very strongly in the power of prayer and healing through prayer My Mum and Dad and myself are Christians (Church Of England)

Most of family are also christians I became a christian (put my life in God's hands and commited my life to him) when I was 13 My parents didn't ask me to commit my life to God I made that choice myself For years kids at school teased me for my religeous belief and it realy hurt me inside although it was hard for me my faith helped me through it

I have friends who are not christian as well as christian friends At the end of the day it's up to the individual weather they believe in God or some other person/force who created the universe some people may possibly not believe in any religeon at all I respect that I also respect other peoples views too

Zapha

Hello, Zaphanndroyd, I am a Christian as well... Nice to meet you!

Hello Zaphannroyd, glad to meet you

But both you and Adelaide are tolerant Christians, the kind who are happy to let people of differant beliefs live alongside them, for which I am glad, but I am forced to ask myself why should we have to depend on your tolerance, surely we have a right to our own beliefs.

<>

A good point well made, Blackberry.

For example, I tend to simply accept everyone's personal beliefs (though I may disagree strongly with what their particular Church has to say) so there is no sense that I have to 'tolerate' anyone personally, based on their personal beliefs.

Though, taken as a whole, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions seem particularly intolerant of anyone who is not 'one of them'. And this is what I mean about not agreeing with their Church.

My own 'spiritual quest' (so to speak) is more a personal voyage of exploration. I have no sense of a 'Divine Truth'. As such, I can see other people's voyages as being just as valid as my own.

But it seems that people who are convinced of having TRUTH are less open to other voyages and voyagers and will often look down on others as being somehow 'less' and somehow lacking in 'what they *know* to be The Truth'.

I think the point you were making, Blackberry, is the basic difference between genuine respect and mere tolerance?


az

"Bible translation is a complicated subject, but more recent translations aim for greater accuracy, as more and older manuscripts are discovered."

Willing to stand corrected, but I was under the impression that the bible as a particular accepted work is a pick and mix affair. With some Church panel or other responsible for what goes in and what gets left out. And that includes older material that has been known about for centuries, not just newly discovered material.
Some of the other works are available in the Apochrypha (or however you spell it!) but others are not.
Although the question of whether one has the right bible or not depends muchly upon ones opinion of what it is I guess. To those for whom it is the translated record of the stories told by various people written down years after their lives from an oral tradition, I would suspect the question of which is right is a bit redundant. To those who believe it is the transcription of the word of God or God's disciples then I suppose the assumption is that it cannot be 'wrong' as such, but that different translations provide slightly different takes on the same thing. i.e. that there is a core message and these editions just look at it from slightly different view points.

<>

It ends up being cherry picking, Ictoan (imho).


az

could you expand? Do you mean the contents are cherry picking or the right bible for me is cherry picking?

hi Ictoan,

I simply mean that many Christians 'cherry pick' their way through their supposed Holy Bible, taking out the bits they like and making all sorts of excuses for the bits they don't agree with.

For example, as far as I know, within the Jewish religion there are orthodox Jews and Reform Jews. Two separate yet connected camps. The reform Jews don't do all the ritual stuff, but maintain a strong connection to their original Holy Book.

With Christians it seems there are thousands of different flavours of them. Which is what makes the concept of 'being a Christian' so hard for me to understand. For example, Della also believes in reincarnation and other Christians also mix 'n match beliefs so that it does become confusing at times to know what the term Christian actually means.

Meanwhile, I grew up believing it had all been written in stone.

It seems to me that the Holy Bible is the Word of God when it suits, and then it becomes 'simply various translations' when people want to back up their cherry picking. In order to make their belief more 'user friendly' so to speak. In order to let them be able to sleep at night?


az

In the last analysis either the Bible (or Koran or whatever) is the "Revealed Word of God" or it isn't. If it is, there is no "greater Truth" (such as how the world actually is) to compare it against and it stands in "splendid isolation" from everything else; if it isn't, then one must have some other criteria for which bits are true - and these other criteria can stand on their own.

Even the existence of an official canon (given that we now know that there other works that could have been included but weren't) constitutes a piece of cherry picking that has become frozen in time as it were.

Noggin

yes,we've basically got the bible the early Catholic church cherry-picked
unless you believe in papal infallability (which wasn't part of Catholic doctrine then) why say that this is the definitive Word of God

<>

Noggin, it had to happen some time... and as far as I know, the Canon was closed around the 3rd century CE. I was quite interested in this issue in the 1990s, and examined many of the works that had been 'left out' - many of them for good reason! The Shepherd of Hermas is one of them - it reads like a self-improvement book, there's nothing wrong with it, and it wasn't forbidden or anything, but given that the canon had to be closed at some point or other, many things had to be left out, or the Bible would have been larger than any given 26 volume encyclopaedia! Other left out books were in a different category altogether - to those who don't accept the historicity of any of it, this will mean nothing, but many of the excluded writings couldn't be traced back any further than the 2nd century.
I am not an expert, but there are many interesting books on the subject - for non-experts - i.e., found in our local library!

but the choices that were made were made by men, often for political reasons

>>Noggin, it had to happen sometime...>>

Why? Is there some principled reason why the corpus of "sacred writings" should *ever* be considered closed while the process of human development continues?


Noggin

Hi Blackberry,
It's nice to meet you too.
I agree everybody dose have a right to thier own beliefs. I respect that.

Zapha