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

Whether you submit yourself to a god or merely follow one, there is the fundamental problem (seen from outside) that the message and requirements of that god must be expressed by a human mouth or a human hand. This human may be believed to be inspired or merely a channel for divine communication, but the involvement of a god is still a matter of faith, which (seen from outside) is a logically self-destructive vicious circle.

"But the True nature is the pursuit of God-liness. That is what they
are supposed to be doing. Pursueing Godliness. You cannot possibly claim that this is an 'evil' ideal."

Even here, where we're supposedly having an open and reasonable discussion, it is impossible to say bad things about a person's religion. Those of us with free minds must bow apologetically and let those who've imprisoned themselves in a construct of faith live their lives in blissful ignorance. We're not allowed to judge, and we're not allowed to speak harsh truths. We get censored if we do.

All I can say is this: read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. Read the Old Testament through to the prophets. Then tell me that this god is an ideal worth pursuing. Tell me that nothing he says or does can be considered evil in a modern context.

There is the book, and there is the tradition, the interpretation. And it's all "man-made".

So basically, it's all silly.

Speaking of education, I picked up a booklet from the used magazine section at the library where I work. It talks about the total downfalls of public schooling (as opposed to a private Christian school) and how it promotes evolution, humanism, militarism, communism and standing up for one's rights (actual quote). It later talks about how Christian schools need not be as expensive as other private schools, because they shouldn't have to conform to the standards our government sets for higher education (a "path away from God"). The teachers only need to meet the standards of the Christian school's they're teaching at. Does it *sound* like a downward spiral to you?

~Wes

Yes, it most certainly does. Not standing up for the rights of others, huh? That makes me angry ...

For the record, I'm not Christian. Quite a bit of your angst with me has to do with the fact that you've made the assumption I'm Christian.

So open minds huh?

Nor do I believe very much (if at all) of what the bible says.

I do however believe there is nothing wrong with the idea of (or maybe ideal?) trying to be like God, which I had thought was the all loving, all seeing, all knowing one. Not the fire and brimstone one of the old testament. Jesus's teachings in other words. To turn the other cheek. What's wrong with that?

Oh, I read your posting before it was moderated Sellers. It was bad taste what you wrote in your last line. Why would anyone change religions if it served them where they needed it? Which was the whole point of me even starting this mess.

If someone finds comfort in following the teachings of Jesus, then let them have that comfort. Very few Christians are of the so called 'literal' interpretation. Most are peace loving. Let them have that. It's just arrogance to look down your nose at them because you think it is a crutch. Humans always seem to need that space filled inside them where they keep their spirit and their hope, some fill it with logic and science and that works for them, others fill it with religion, and that works for them just fine too.

As long as these people aren't out trying to start wars or crash airplanes into building then why not?

You have a problem with the old testament God. Fine. But Christianity, like the people who started the story in Genesis, has evolved. It IS more modern in the sense that no one believes that a sacrifice is required when a sin is committed anymore. Nor does anyone believe that God will come out of the sky and smite Israel's enemies. Once upon a time they did believe that. Once upon a time the Greeks believed in Olympus, but most do not these days. Religion is fluid in the sense it changes with the people that embrace it. They make it their own and because of that it changes.

So at length my point is this, don't deny someone the hope and inspiration they get from religion just because it seems like a crock to you. If it pushes them to lead a better life, then who are you to deny them that?

You know, I always have a good time with those people that come to the door and try and convert me. I almost always say to them that I would no sooner ask them to believe as I do then listen to them tell me what I should believe. Its that ARROGANCE that gets me if you haven't figured it out by now. No one has the right to tell you how you should believe.

Debating about it is something else. We can do that until the cows come home, I'll tell you what I think, and you can do the same......just don't expect me to believe anything you say

And now that you've made sweeping generalizations about me, allow me to disavow you of all of them... not that you'll "believe" me, of course, because you've already set yourself to the task of dismissing everything I say out of hand. At least I would listen to you, if you could only talk some sense...

Was that arrogant enough?

The ultimate arrogance is the imposition of beliefs on people. If we lived in a world where freedom of religion included freedom *from* religion (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde), then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. But as an American citizen, I'm in very real danger from religious lunatics. We can address the individuals responsible, but we'll only end up doing it all again, because we're doing nothing about the root causes. Religion is a root cause.

"Why would anyone change religions if it served them where they needed it?" - They wouldn't. The Taliban, for instance, has found a religion that serves them exactly where they need it. And all those innocent Tajiks who *don't* share the comfort of their religion don't have a say... which is MY point. As an American, I watch religion attempt to erode the seperation of church and state every day (Bush has some great ideas along that line). As a Brit, many of you here pay taxes which go to support a religion that has no relevance to you. It's the same in many other European countries. Who are these people to impose their beliefs on you?? THAT'S arrogance.

"As long as these people aren't out trying to start wars or crash airplanes into building then why not?" _ Because they *are* trying to do these things. New York City, Washington DC, Belfast, Tel Aviv... any of these ring a bell?

Jesus's teachings did nothing to dispel the Old Testament. In fact, he specifically supports the old laws, including the killing of disobedient children. He says a few nice things, and just as many awful things. You can take a handful of Jesus' sayings and justify absolutely anything under them... including defending the entire religion ("turn the other cheek", indeed... sounds like poor advice to me). If it's a moral teacher the people need, they can find better.

The people who are peaceful would be peaceful without Jesus. The people who are violent would probably remain violent without him. The difference is, the people who are violent and manipulative would not find the people so easy to manipulate without religion. Without the promise of Heaven, do you think those guys would *really* have flown a plane into the World Trade Center, and gone to their deaths? I don't have Allah, and I damned sure wouldn't.

Religion is a tool to turn peaceful people into violent people, and there are those in the world who will use that to their own ends. No power on this earth is more dangerous than zealotry, be it religious or patriotic.

As for my personal arrogance, and looking down on people's beliefs as a crutch, know this: I have a little club here called the Freedom From Faith Foundation. Many of the members are self-proclaimed theists of various types. The rest are atheists or agnostics of varying degrees. And we manage to have reasonable conversations without excess arrogance or mud-slinging.

The one common tie is a complete disdain for traditional Western religion. It has no place in society. And I *do* have the right to tell people not to believe in it, both because I've been force-fed a steady diet of religion from family, friends, acquaintances, media, and strangers approaching my door, and because it is a clear and present danger to society. Let people have their own private theisms if they want, but when they come together in a religion, they're more dangerous than an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons... as history and recent events clearly demonstrate.

We can't know, because we can't set up the experiment, but I fear you may be right, Colonel.

I've observed many things which I'd label "good" which probably wouldn't have happened without religion. Whether it's a crutch, a tool or a structure, a faith and a religious organisation can lead you, give you the means, support you in doing "good" things.

But it can also be an oppressive tool, a standard behind which people will line up to do "bad" things. European missionary activity, some aspects of the slave trade, devaluation of women - it's too easy to list the down side.

There are people who join development charities because their faith tells them it's the right thing to do. There are churches which expend huge amounts of energy in trying to help the poor of the world. What they do may be good or bad for the poor in the long run (if they're still poor in the long run, maybe it wasn't good enough). It may be patronising (the insidious cousin of arrogance?), and therefore bad.

Would the poor be better off without these activities? Don't forget there are many others who do apparently the same kind of "good" thing because of other types of "faith" - socialism, humanism, quakerism. We seem to have a talent for "ism-ising" the world. Or is that a need?

But whenever I start thinking that religion is maybe OK, because even Christians are humanists nowadays, I always come up against Mother Teresa, who is widely regarded as a "saint", but I would characterise (in the same vocabulary) as a devil. She took in the destitute but she kept them destitute. They were pure and holy because they were poor and sick and dying. Misguided is only the start of it.

OK, just a few ramblings, but I hope they add to the debate and annoy a few people.

And another thing...

I was brought up in a catholic family and church and school and all the rest. But even when I was still going to church, I thought "turn the other cheek" was a stupid idea. That's not pacifism, that's masochism.

I'm not a pacifist, but I want to avoid violence wherever possible, on the personal and world stages. Walk away, try to get out of it by talking, defend yourself, hit someone if it's really necessary, hurt rather than maim rather than kill - I can argue those positions. But not "turn the other cheek".

While you mention "turn the other cheek" it's interesting to me that it's in the same Bible as "an eye for an eye".

Erm. A little earlier I posted a paraphrasing from a little booklet I picked up. I don't like to quote things without really quoting them, so here's what it really said:
"[At public schools] evolution, relativism, mythology, nationalism, militarism, low moral standards, equality of sexes, divorce and remarriage, and standing up for one's rights are all encouraged by precept and example (with some exceptions, of course)."

Also,
"The cost [of private Christian schools] will be less if we do not ask for schools that meet all the state recommendations relating to accreditation, libraries, teacher training, and so forth.
We need teachers with maturity and experience. However, there is no reason that we should look for teachers with formal schooling beyond what our Christian schools can supply. The push for higher education is one of the snares of the public school system..."

Rod and Staff Publishers, Inc.

I know this forum has moved past this, but I felt like I had to get the exact wording out, not just my remembering of it. Anyway.
(and pardon me for my sloppy guideml)

~Wes

I'm just butting in to tell the Colonel that many Muslims actually don't believe in the afterlife. I know Mohammad Ali didn't, at least.

I believe I said in my last posting that no one has the right to tell you what to believe.....could it be that we agree on something???

But as far as dismissing out of hand, I wouldn't say that is the case. I haven't addressed your comments about the 'facts' of 'chrisitian' atrocities because as I said before I don't think that the majority of Christians would have behaved that way. If there is anything wrong with the Church it is the leadership. The papacy has made some incredibly foolish mistakes in the past. So again I think we could agree on something, if not exactly. You call them root causes, I'd say its the leadership that is part of the problem, the root if you will.

"As long as these people aren't out trying to start wars or crash airplanes into building then why not?" _ Because they *are* trying to do these things. New York City, Washington DC, Belfast, Tel Aviv... any of these ring a bell?

Yes, yes, yes they ring a bell. zzzzzzzz. Of course the fanatics with their so-called literal translations are doing these things. The majority rarely makes noise in the world, but the minority is heard from quite a bit.

I am also interested in where it says Jesus is for killing disobediant children. Very curious about that actually. Provide a chapter for me.

'The people who are peaceful would be peaceful without Jesus. The people who are violent would probably remain violent without him. The difference is, the people who are violent and manipulative would not find the people so easy to manipulate without religion. Without the promise of Heaven, do you think those guys would *really* have flown a plane into the World Trade Center, and gone to their deaths? I don't have Allah, and I damned sure wouldn't.'

This I DO have a problem with. Of course they would have still crashed their planes into the WTC! There are other motivations besides religion. The Kamakazie fighters of Japan come to mind(but they might not be a perfect example as there may have been a little religion tied in to that case, I don't rememeber). Some people, if the cause is great enough, will give their lives just for the honor it will do themselves or their people. So yeah, if they were committed, which I believe they were, they would have continued on with their mission if I can call it that.

'Religion is a tool to turn peaceful people into violent people, and there are those in the world who will use that to their own ends. No power on this earth is more dangerous than zealotry, be it religious or patriotic'

Religion is not a tool to turn peaceful people into violent people, that is not its intent in most cases. But particularly Christianity was not made with that intent. Christianity has been used before that way, but that doesn't mean war is its only use or even one of its purposes. It seems to me that if a lot more of the practicioners used a little more thinking for themselves, and not so much blind following these wars in the name of religion wouldn't happen at all. But as I said, most people do this already, which I believe is what sets a 'normal' person from a fanatic.

As far as your society goes, that's great, have fun with it, but don't think that it somehow impresses me enough to not argue with you. I don't care how many people belong to it, even if I'm the only guy defending my position I'd still fight for it until I find some reason not to. Which is why I DO read what people write in response to my postings because there is a chance they might be right, hell I'd even tell you if you were. But you're not in this instance. You can't make a 'sweeping generalization' about religion as a whole-that it should be banned. That's just as bad as the fanatics telling you that we're heretics for not believing their version of creation. At some point you become just as bad as your enemy, and I hope you can see that. A little bit of moderation here would be good, believe me.

I was raised a southern baptist, maybe that means something to you, maybe it doesn't. It means a whole slew of things to me. Very early in life I knew these people had it all wrong. Been looking for the 'right' way ever since. But I wouldn't deny them their freedom to believe their pastor as long as he's not advocating violence, or homophobia, or xenocide or bla bla bla you get the idea. There are lots of things wrong with religion and it is very easy to throw stones at it, but there are a lot of good things too. So I wouldn't toss out the whole barrel just for a few bad apples, I'd just throw out the bad ones, and go on my way.

If there is anything you want to advocate it should be religious reform. But, as I am a realist, I know that that also is a long row to hoe, one which I do not have the desire to work. Maybe you and your group do?

As for my personal arrogance to coin the phrase, I'll usually be respectful and decline their attempt to 'save me'. As I know the pursuit of the truth will save me in the end. And I'll not tell them what I've found in the search until they first have asked me. I wouldn't want to cause someone else to stumble in their faith, and you know that for a lot of people they are just barely hanging on to that faith it being all they have. Ask, and you'll recieve is my own motto otherwise, thanks for stopping by and have a good day.

'The one common tie is a complete disdain for traditional Western religion. It has no place in society. And I *do* have the right to tell people not to believe in it, both because I've been force-fed a steady diet of religion from family, friends, acquaintances, media, and strangers approaching my door, and because it is a clear and present danger to society. Let people have their own private theisms if they want, but when they come together in a religion, they're more dangerous than an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons... as history and recent events clearly demonstrate.'

And as for your last statement, a group is always more powerful than a single person so therefore any group religious or otherwise is dangerous. That would mean that your group is dangerous too. That your Freedom From Faith organization could become dangerous sounds almost laughable but I don't doubt for a second that should it catch on outside of this benign website, should it be funded and advertised, should the right leader emerge who was charismatic and angry enough about the whole idea of religion, that it would be dangerous to peace loving Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists just to name a few 'faith' religions not all of which are western. And just because you had a bad experience with it(I did to of course but that is another story with a different ending then yours) doesn't mean you should conjure up a fire and brimstone of your own and condemn the whole lot of religion just because you were forced to sit in a room 1 hour or so every sunday in the hope that you would find something meaningful for your existence.

Just as an aside, I didn't find what I was looking for in religion either, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying let them have their religion, and let the rest of us happily refuse and go on our way.

(did I put out the flames a little or only make it worse?)

You talk about what christianity was intended to do. Intended by whom? Some manifestation of god? Not terribly omnipotent if so many of us have twisted his intentions so badly.

I once played a game when I was in gradeschool. It was called telephone.

In it everyone formed a line sat next to each other. The person at the end of the line whispered something to the person next to them, they turned to the guy/girl next to them and were *supposed* to pass that whispered word to the person next to them, and so on.

What you find with this game is that the word gets changed. It doesn't have to be a word even, sometimes it can be a sentance, but the word or the sentance changes with nearly everone who hears it.

In this way I think the TRUE meaning of Christianity for one has been distorted with every mouth that uttered the Gospel. In fact, as an aside I'm reading a book about this very thing that is making some interesting claims. One of which is the fact that the founder of *modern* Christianity (paul) never knew Jesus, and was in fact rejected by the Jewish Church ie those that actually knew Jesus. Just guess what they argue about......

the divinity of Jesus.

Even still, that is neither here nor there, as the main point about my entire defense of the religion is that I know what I was taught growing up, and it was not this mass hatred of all that is not Christian. It was not a us against them scenerio nor was it a sitiuation where we were taught to despise other religions. Perhaps I'm an atypical case.

And last, just because one is allegedly omnipotent does not mean that they would have any inclination to intercede, Christians would call that omnipresent-all knowing. If one knows how it is all to end, then one doesn't have to act.

In my opinion, which is subject to change, the only truly worthwhile part of christianity is the message of love.

Unfortunately, as Permium just said, the message tends to get a bit muddled as it passes from person to person. If only people could remember that, and not get all wrapped up in the meaning of one line. I'm not a christian, or an atheist really. I don't know what I am, but I do know that I believe in love.

We need more tags like to make a truly X(asperating) Markup Language.

There are religious adherents I think are good people. There are those who annoy me. There are those who screw people up. There are those who are cannon fodder or armchair generals in the godly campaign against rationality and humanity.

But then there are people who would call themselves atheists (and I'd agree) who do at least as much damage (or, sometimes, good) through an excessive certainty syndrome which may be political or more personal.

There are times when I suspect that problems will be solved only by people not being people any more. We're just a bit imperfect. But then who's judging?

Hmmm.

Kamikaze == divine wind

Could have more than a *little* to do with religion, as well as people being brought up from birth to believe in the nobility of dying for a hereditary dictator.

To my mind, the idea of Freedom From Faith also covers the idea of people (especially children) being free from indoctrination in non-religious ideologies as well.

You need to draw a line or two.

Children should be free of indoctrination, but supported by a rough model of the world that they can deal with as they will.

Why do you assume, WP, that Genesis was ever meant to be taken literally? I don't think that was ever the case, and think the fault lies with modern-day fundamentalists who insist that it is meant to be literal, every word - and not just Genesis, the whole Bible. In the 3rd century, Origen said and others also, that the Bible is on 3 levels - only one of which is literal.