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

Backlog=not fun.

Anyway, after wading through this thread I will now offer my own contributions.

The bit about day not neccesarily being 24 hours eg. In my grandfather's day (can't remeber post numbers, bear with me). I heard (so it may not neccesarily be true but it came from a grwaly respected source) that day is a mistranslation and the original word in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew or whatever was even more variable than "day" is and literally means "time period".

There was something earlier on about the dual natures of God i.e. forgiving and vengefulness. God is (substitute "I believe" for anytime I say is) omnipotent and so does not have to allow the existence of Satan. The very existence of the Devil implies that God has some need for a facility of punishment. Also, I see no reason why God could not be both vengeful and kind. Humans are perfectly capable of having two natures. I am not talking schizophrenia, I mean there are people you love people you hate. You are capable of both emotions and neither inhibits tyhe existence of the other.

This has mainly all been said before but I am just making my voic heard, since now I know of this thread I will post more regularly.

>> No, the way things were created in Genesis are very different from the sequence they happened in according to science. <<

Y'mean, like, first there was Nothing except 'God' (the force of creation) and then there was 'light' (energy) and matter was formed (the earth and the oceans) and the peculiar way certain gaseous elements are held by gravity created our planetary atmosphere (the air or breath of life) causing photosynthesis and allowing subsequently more complex life to grow out of the matter until now there is ALL THIS stuff we see around us?

I see no difference between the two theoretical progressions in general. Is there some particular detail you wish to question? And would it deny the general theory if 'early man' (living in hierarchal societies) had to say he was created before the animals because he believed he held dominion over them as witnessed by his hunting and herding skills (represented in Genesis by the 'naming' (knowing) of the beasts)?


~jwf~

The order depends on which Genesis account you read of course.
In the first the stars are made after the Earth is. As well as the sun. And water animals and birds are made first. Then land animals and insects. And then humans.
But if it is only a myth, then it doesn't matter.

Whew. I wish I had discovered this thread earlier. There is way too much to comment on, so I won't even try.

The parable of the Good Samaritan has been mentioned and even retitled. My question is why does it matter if it's literally true or not? (Or any of the other parables, for that matter.) The lesson in the parable is valid whether it really happened or not.

This subject is very divisive within the Christian community. I guess I'm dense, but I don't think it makes any difference whether it's literally true or metaphorical. Whether there really was an Adam and Eve, or whether Moses parted the Red Sea, or any of the other Old Testament stories - it's all interesting but what does it have to do with feeding the hungry, nursing the dying, housing the homeless and bringing comfort and hope to the hopeless? The message of Jesus keeps getting hidden under side issues like this.

as part of my theology degree , i am currently reading about near eastern myths that tie in with the bible. the early bits of the old testament are henotheistic (there are other gods, but ours is the only potent one). yahweh, it seems, developed out of the head of the pre-hebrew pantheon of loads of gods, el. im doing an essay on it tomorrow. its dead interesting...

Hypatia:

I agree; it shouldn't make any difference whether it is literal or metaphoric. But what may seem to be fiddly little differences in interpretation do make a difference in the real world. For example, the schism between the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches is officially over a single word: "filioque"

Yes, you're right anhaga that it's a very big deal to many people. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many different sects. I was just expressing my frustration at the whole thing - that the emphasis is placed upon defining that one word or on opposing the teaching of evolution in schools or on how long a woman's hair should be rather than on doing the work Jesus asks us to do, which is to take care of each other, especially those less fortunate than ourselves.

We all believe what we choose to believe. Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally have so much invested in their position that you could present them with incontravertible proof that they were wrong and they still wouldn't accept it. Their faith in in a dogma, not in God. Destroy the dogma and they have no faith. That's why they defend it so aggressively.

To more libreral Christians, faith doesn't depend upon the literal truth of the Bible. Showing that Adam is a metaphor doesn't affect their faith in the validity of basic Judeo-Christian tenets. Even a doctrine as important as the ressurection is questioned by many without it destroying their faith in the teachings of Jesus.

While the devil needs no advocate, I will offer my services in that capacity for a moment:

Are you suggesting that, for some, Christianity is really nothing other than an ethical system?

That's right. There are many "modern" Christians who doubt the truth of the virgin birth, many of the miracle stories and the resurrection. They certainly don't believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories. But they admire the teachings of Jesus and believe that they can be applied to modern life.There are also many who are trying to reconcile Christian beliefs with Buddhist concepts such as reincarnation. This creates a hybrid.

People attend religious services for many reasons. A lot of these have nothing to do with actual belief. It's good for business. Helps your social status. Will make it easier to get elected mayor. Many people, I suspect, would like to admit that they don't believe, but don't have the courage. What would the neighbors think?

My background is in history. As such I have always tried to look at what was happening when these stories were written. At which Bible stories were borrowed and which were original. At how social customs and other cultures and religions affected the meanings of the Bible stories. But just because you look at things with a critical eye doesn't mean that you lose respect for them or for the powerful influence they exert.

"just because you look at things with a critical eye doesn't mean that you lose respect for them or for the powerful influence they exert"

Hear, hear! This is the kind of talk I was hoping to hear when I asked the absurd question that started all this. Thank you.


Another question I find it interesting to consider is "If one holds tolerance to be a paramount virtue, how does one react to intolerance?"

>> But if it is only a myth, then it doesn't matter. <<

On the contrary, myth making is probably our most important tool.

Even the wheel and fire would be lost to us unless an accompanying oral tradition survived to describe their creation and use to future generations. After a few generations no one could remember the name of the 'grandfather' who discovered fire, so the myth is modified to ascribe this gift as from 'the gods', ie: an ancestoral spirit.

Throughout our history myth has been our way of expressing our understanding (or our best guess) of events on both the human and cosmological scale. It is still being used by 'scientists' every time they come up with a new hypothesis or theory. These concepts (warp travel, the Matrix, event horizons) find their way into pop culture creating a 'cultural understanding'.

By comparing 'creation myths' from around the world, including the 'big bang' theory, a deductive mind can find certain factors which occur regularly in many of them, leading one to believe there are some universal Truths about these matters.

The sequence of events may vary slightly but generally some 'unknown and unknowable force' (The Raven) discovers or creates some material (a clamshell) out of which it fashions or releases Life (including men and fish and birds and the beasts and insects in whatever hierarchy any particular culture views the natural order) into a wonderously harmonised and bountiful world.

But then, th 'first man' encounters a dilema (often a moral one) and is left to cope with reality as best he can. In many cultures this 'original sin' is the murder of a tribal totem creature. In our western world it was Adam watching Eve sucking on a symbolic banana in a provocative way. (Forget the apple! That was Puritan revisionism.)


~jwf~

Everyone needs a day off from time to time! Even the Big Guy (if you swallow that sort of thing)

MadHamish
(My god is in a bottle, and it ain't the genie from "I dream of Genie")

We assume that as soon as humans evolved enough to have the ability to think critically we began to question where all of this came from, what our place in all of it is, how we relate to the natural world and what happens to us when we die.

I agree with jwt that creation myths are fascinating and that the act of mythmaking and the resultant rituals serve an important function in society. This would be a great conversation topic. The problem arises when people take their myths as gospel and reek havoc because God told them to do so. It's much harder to launch a crusade or a jihad in support of a metaphor. And with much of the world under the control of militant Islamic fundamentalists, this question of literalness becomes more than an intellectual exercise. (Not that the world is any safer from militant Christian fundamentalists - they just don't hold as much political power at the moment.)

Sorry...jwf I knew that. Really.

>> "If one holds tolerance to be a paramount virtue, how does one react to intolerance?" <<

Fight fire with fire I say.
Seriously, why would anyone hold tolerance as a paramount virtue?
(Because intolerance is such an obviously 'deadly' sin, perhaps?)

Tolerance is just self-conscious awareness of one's natural patience and as such is prone to the sin of self indulgence. Abandon introspective rationalisations of one's honest feelings and one will know precisely when patience has reached its limit.

While never paramount, patience is a virtue. But enough is also enough. There is a time to reep and a time to sew and a stitch in time saves nine. Like I said, fire with fire.


~jwf~

Do you see tolerance as being the same as nonviolence? In a political sense as taught by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.?

It is the language used by the Aussie Bible that offends me far more than the idea BUT the idea offends me too as we are a predominantly English speaking nation so if we are going to translate the bible maybe we should translate it into some Aboriginal languages rather than Ocker.

here, here ythika

Good point Ythika !

I am a fan of Joseph Cambells body of work.
He spent his life on the worlds myths and religions.