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

aaaaaaarrggh indeed queen of that are gold and possibly French

You can put external URLs in your Personal Space and in Guide Entries, but not in conversations or in your Journal entries which are just a particular instance of conversations.

Some people put a list of URLs in their personal space, others create a page for the URLs they would have put in the threads.

You can put any internal BBC url in conversation threads.

This is the sainted Beeb, so you may not advertise for charities, goods or services.

F**r-letter words are subject to random acts of moderation, (though to be fair, the guidelines given to the moderators about asterisking b*d-language are pretty subjective. It's a thorny subject).

If you can live with this - well and good. If not, please stay here, it is always good to see new names in the threads, and you can sign a petition about Moderation on this site here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A544943

Welcome to H2G2.

a girl called Ben
Wary of Moderators - Donates to Amnesty
Asterisking tonight? - Too asterisking right!

Maggy wrote ...

<>


I'm coming in rather late on this thread, so sorry if I am covering old ground! Why do I suddenly feel the need to change the subject??!

I think the technically correct answer might be: "Yes, Jesus' love is unconditional, but you need to make a response."

Of course, you are entirely free to respond how you wish, but we Christians should be allowed our freedom too!

Anyone read "The Post-Evangelical" by Dave Tomlinson?

Chris

You're not going to slip one past the censors (it's not moderation, that means something else entirely), because they're not using programming... there are real people doing the censoring. And apparently, they have a sense of humor. I got a good laugh about the URL that had the spaces in it, replaced by the usual message, with spaces between each letter.

"reeks of intelligence" - Well, the universe does have several smells, some pleasant, some revolting, but I don't know that I'd call any of them Intelligence.



I look around at the universe, and I see *some* order. But I see more pure entropy... objects floating around, interacting at random, but obeying some few simple rules. The law of gravity. Atomic structure. Wave/particle behavior. There are a few more simple rules, but after that, it's all chaos. Objects smash into objects. Orbital paths break down. Fits and spurts of evolutionary experimentation create a new species that can survive in a new or recently vacated ecological niche. If a clockmaker got involved, he did damned little work on it. It would be like someone creating an aquarium by setting a large bowl on the ground. A quick flood provides the water and the life forms to begin creating the ecosystem, entirely on its own, and whether it becomes a home to some sort of fish, or frogs, or an insect breeding ground is entirely given to chance.

As for the bit about "we all deserve drowning," that's the polar opposite but equally harmful counter to the "this world was created for my benefit" theory. Does it really make people feel good that their existence and well-being is based on the whim of a remote deity? Does it really help people to believe that they're awful and disgusting things that offend their creator at every moment, and that they were offensive to him at birth (original sin)? That's an absolutely awful way to live life. If something happens for the good, you can't take credit for it... it was god's will. But if something bad happens, you take blame for it, regardless of whether that blame is justified. It happened because this god creature decided that you deserved it, because you're awful and offensive.

Wallowing in worthlessness is every bit as bad as ecocentrism and self-importance. I find it better to realize that my existence is entirely accidental and, in the grand scheme of things, completely unworthy of notice. However, that accident is quite a nice thing for me, so I will enjoy it and make the most out of it, and help others around me to do the same with their happy accident. And maybe, just maybe, I'll help create or amplify one of those ripples on the pond which can be a benefit in the long run for those who follow after me.

I've said this before, but whether or not we were created by a divine entity or if we are indeed all the result of a freak sequence of chance occurrences with an infinitessimally small probability of happening, I really don't believe that it should be such an issue. I am here, yes. So are an awful lot of plants, bacteria and fungi. They survive without puzzling over whether or not they were created by a divine being (as far as I'm aware, but then I've always hated ecology). Will there be bacteria in heaven?...

As for original sin - do correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be), but I think this an example of created doctrine - ie. not actually explicitly within the scriptures. I think problems occur when people insist on taking scripture literally, because then you realise that there are holes - look at the scouring of Hell, because according to Christian doctrine all of us who aren't Christian will go to hell - for example such figures as Abraham, Moses, Adam, Eve...

Obviously I will defend my own faith, because otherwise I wouldn't follow it, but I certainly wouldn't try and force it upon others - what right do I have? this is why I disagree with missionary faiths - and yet all the same, we hold no emphasis on how we came to exist - we just do. I agree with you Colonel Sellers that we should concern ourselves with getting on with our existence now that we have it.

Jherek Carnelian - you are wonderful. Literally every other preson on h2g2 has (wrongly) assumed that my title makes me Queen of the Redfish. Here's one just for you -

Now does that look red to you? Does it?

Isn't the French word for gold "or," and the proper name for goldfish, by extension, "poissons d'or"?

The Frenh for gold is indeed "or", but the think is that what the French call a "poisson rouge" the English call a goldfish. This is the problem of translating literally in any language. We call a baked dish of batter containing sausages "Toad in the Hole", but I doubt that translating it literally into French would help matters. Similarly "Nasi Lemak" is a Malaysian dish of rice cooked in coconut milk with various sambals and tiny fish cooked with chillis ("ikan bilis", in case you're interested), but the name means "rice with fat" when translated literally into English. Less appetising, I'm sure you'll agree.

As for the animal thing, a Guinea pig in French is a "Cochon d'Inde" - an Indian pig...

Ben:

I'm not saying that God would punish us. I'm saying that we deserve to be punished. God is life; s/he/it/they keep us going. Without God, what is there? Nothing! This nothingness has been visualised in various ways, but in the end it's all pretty much the same. We don't deserve God. That was my point.

Not judgemental at all, really. We're all so close to equally guilty it doesn't matter.

--Cooper

Where are the Babel fish when you really need them ?


Blarty the atheist

Cooper:
Why do I dissever to be punished? Because some long forgotten ancestor ate some fruit? Because my parents were told by the church that they were not married? (And why am I a bustard in the churches eyes?)
I would gladly suffer the void than go to a heaven that includes the money hungry TV bible thumpers. Or if you prefer having a nice lake of fire (is that anything like a hot tub?) with Gondi, Buddha, and Eienstein.

Chris:
I maybe mistaken, but I believe that Maggy was talking about freedom. Freedom from not having someone forcing there way of thinking on you.

WACC0

Is it my imagination or is there less religious flaming now on H2G2? Time was when threads like this could be really personally abusive and deeply vicious.

If there IS less flaming, is definitely a good thing; there were some pretty unpleasant flame-wars about god, and other good stuff.

*Hush - maybe the moderators are having a moderating effect? - Sush, my children, all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well*

Sorry to compare with the good-old bad-old days. I was just wondering.

agcB

Perhaps - I'd noticed that conversation of most sorts have toned down these days - the mad fora like the duct tape one have gone... The monarchy debate the other week inflamed some passions though.

Oh I dropped out of that one. Found the subject basically boring.

*tootles off in search of flames*

agcB

>. We call a baked dish of batter containing sausages "Toad in the Hole",<

hmm... maybe somethings been lost in the cultural translation. I was under the impression that a toad in the hole was a piece of toast with a circle removed in the middle and a fried egg in the hole.

wonder what else I've been missing

This has already been said, but it is so important it needs reiterating. By worrying about your position in society, by thinking you have a closet belief or dirty secret you are framing the issue in a way which is damaging to yourself. The context in which you live makes you think your beliefs are to be hidden, but there is nothing odd about those beliefs. You pose no real threat to those around you. You have no reason to shout your beliefs from the rooftops, but equally have no need to fear them becoming public.

As for your daughter, I am not sure you need worry. The breadth of her education is the most important point. I would be very worried if I heard that she wasn't being taught evolutionary theory, or given a distorted view of history or, less worse, not taught about certain aspects of history. Talk to her as normal. Listen to her. Challenge aspects of her beliefs that you feel should be challenged. You can challenge undogmatically. Framing the challenge as an alternative perspective rather than the truth. Whatever transpires I doubt this requires a special conversation about the matter. That, in my view only, would lead to resistance on her part.

Treat her as an adult and engage her in conversation. You can't go too far wrong.

NL

WACC0 wrote

WACC0:

You are absolutely right. There is no way I would want to force my way of thinking on anyone - after all, God doesn't force himself upon us - he has given us all free will (and intellects too!!) So what right have I to try to force anyone?

Where I do have a problem though, is when the prevailing world-view prevents Christians from freely expressing their beliefs. Surely tolerance cuts both ways?

Ultimately we all have a free choice - given to us by God, who presumably knows what he's doing...?!

Chris

Blartyfartpants, I was stuck in someone's ear. Unfortunately they were asleep. What's happening? What have I missed? Mumbo-jumbo or proper joined up & hard to fathom mystique?

ok because this seems to be a religios descussion would someone explane thiss to me..well actually ther is two parts to it.

why do cathlicks baleve that you carnt go to heaven unless you have been baptiesed even if you a baby wich really is the only inocent thing on the plannet.(thats the first one)

on a phone in last night a women was so unhappy because a cathlic prest refused to baptise her grand sone in her church. what gives the prest the right to refuse any one I mean I thought that god was open to everyone and not just the people the prest like.

Catholics believe that babies *aren't* innocent - they are tainted by original sin, ie. that of Adam and Eve when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Plus sex isn't viewed as a very pleasant thing, and so that doesn't help. That's why the Catholic church made up the business of the immaculate conception, and in turn that Mary herself must have been conceived without sin...

Plus - the translation of the "Virgin" Mary is actually wrong; the original Greek actually means "young woman".