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

Hi DA, Nicky

Thanks for your answer. If God is perfect, how could he need to create a world and populate it with people? If God were in existence, in the universe, or as part of the universe (whatever the exact arrangement is), and he was perfect, how could he suddenly _need_ to add something? If he is perfect, then he is/has everything he needs. He cannot lack anything, so he could not, as far as I can see, suddenly need to add anything. Adding the earth/humans and so on would mean that he _needed_ or _wanted_ them to come into existence, but if he was perfect already, he could not _need_ or _want_ anything besides what he already had. To suggest he did would mean he _lacked_ something, and was therefore less than perfect.

nicky, you said the OT and NT God is the same God.
But in the OT this God tells Moses to order a man to be stoned to death for blashpemy, an order which is carried out BUT in the NT Jesus, also carrying out (the same?) God's orders , says famously 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and the culprit lives to tell the tale.
Now which is it? Which one is the real God?
Why do you maintain that these two Gods who make opposite judgements are the same God? If it's the same God then he's surely beyond redemption himself.

The OT God is the same as the NT God and the same as God today. Many attributes are given to God, but for Christians the main meta-narrative is that God is Love. if you look in Corinthians 13 you'll find that the aspect of Love (sorry Andrew Lloyd Weber!) can be interpreted many ways.

We find God elsewhere in NT (John 1) described as the Word or Logos, meaning to say the "reason" for and behind ALL things (in a Hellenic philosophical tradition).

Earlier on in the OT you'll find expressions of God attributes as of Justice, Truth, etc. And even very early on different names. For example Melchizedek a King of Salem (Jerusalem) teamed up with Abraham to defeat some mutual enemies and Abraham on finding that Melchizedek also was a 'God fearing' man of the single God most high, tithed to him and together they prayed to THEIR God. Abraham (considered the father of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims) recognized that his God was also the God of others, before him. This point recieves some attention in the Epistle of Hebrews, as Abraham sacrifices wine and bread with Melchizidek. Prefiguring the last supper and passion sacrifice of Christ. The Jewish-Christian writer of Hebrews sees parallels with Melchizedek and Christ in a profound way. If you take a moment to think about that maybe you will to.

In a key passage in Matthew 19:8. Jesus on being quizzed by scribes and pharisees about the laws of divorce says "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning".

Clearly Jesus sees that the God of OT is the same as his NT Father. But illustrates that the teaching has changed through the ages of man, becuase of his "hard heart", i.e., their ability to recieve the good news (the Gospel Message).

What has does this all mean? It means that God is Love, and from this we see many attributes, and this understanding has developed over the years till being fulfilled in Christ. Through mans history he has recieved revelation of the true nature of God, and as he has been able to understand it as his knowledge, understanding and wisdom has developed accordingly.

The Mosaic Law was imperfect, but perfected by Jesus the messiah as prophesized. We have a summary of the law to "Love God with all our hearts, mind, body and soul and our neighbor as ourselves".

It is a one God of Love (including Logos, Truth, Justice, Goodness, Beauty, etc.) that we have, for us all. He calls us to integrate all our human faculties (mind,heart, body and soul) of our reason and our faith to return Love to him (a Love he offered to us first). Why? Becuase it gives us meaning in an otherwise meaningless and suffering world. It give us an ability to rise to acts of mercy and kindness. To become one in unity with Christ accordingly. Then we too will be adopted children of God, brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is this pie in the sky?

You know, if we only all of us started to by kind to our neighbors, to emphathize and support them just a little day by day, within a few weeks the whole world would be transformed. It would take very little from each of us. But many of us choose to reject such as simple prescription for harmony, tolerance and charity. Its easier to say no and hold to the little treasure we have, but it is a recipe for ongoing pain. There is anbother way.

If I could have one little wish answered today, my prayer would be for all who read this message to "pay it forward". Offer some kindness to the next person they meet, and ask them to do the same. Trite? Maybe, but you will be surpised at the Joy it brings to you if you give it a try.

I have no doubt there are skeptics out there who will not bother. I was one of them once upon a time. We all have choices to make in life, choose to be positive.

Pilgrim4Truth, you've skipped neatly to the end if I may say so. What happened to that grumpy Old Testament spy in the garden God I've already spoken about who told Moses, himself already a murderer, to order the stoning to death of a blasphemer, that eye on the purse strings God who valued a woman at 30 sheckels and a man at 50 sheckels and a woman over 60 at 10 sheckels etc., and that bloodthirsty God who ordered all kinds of animals' blood be sprinkled over the altars and that expert dietecian God who ruled that it's ok to eat locusts but it's not ok to eat rabbits etc., and the God of the 10-rules for living, plagarised from the original 43 rules of the Egyptians, and that God who said that mensturating women were unclean, and that revengeful God of the fracture for a fracture, eye for an eye and so on.
And as for the OT God who lives unseen, except by Moses and Aaron, in a tent and then after the death of his friend Moses goes and has a friendly chat with Joshua, well that's about the giddy limit isn't it?

Or am I missing something? I'm always willing to stand corrected.

I'll give you my view, I think it is mostly correct - though others will disagree of course!

1st Point
*********
IMO - The OT Genesis story is not so much about telling a literal story of the creation history of the world as it about placing the metaphysical position of man in context with God and creation. In that respect Genesis was useful when it was written and is useful now, it is truly inspired scripture from that POV. The relationship of man to God is the IMPORTANT issue, not the number of days to takes to make the heavens (in that respect many folks read into it something it never really intended to cover IMO).

2nd Point
*********
We all read with what some folks call a "reality tunnel", i.e., a perspective and mindset that filters what meaning we take from a story. The meta-narrative of Christians is unique and you need to understand it if you would like to understand scripture from a Christian perspective. The meta-narrative is that "God love us and gives us free will to choose to love him by giving up our will to follow his will, and in particular has intervened in man's history to reveal this, fullfilled ultimately in the good news of Jesus Christ who we need to model our lifes upon".

I know this is like jumping to the end of the book - but you need to as its the only way you get the reality tunnel tuned in so to speak (you will have a hard time understanding scripture otherwise - it will look cruel and immoral to our eyes otherwise)!

With these insights. Your 'peeping tom' of God in the Garden of Eden is just an allegory of mans creation and his relationship to God. The tree of knowledge of good and evil and life represent things man wants but cannot have (perfect knowledge of consequences and immortality) these attributes are the attributes of God. The serpent invites man to take on the mantle of God. Man sins by disobeying the will of God. Christ becomes the 2nd Adam by obeying God's will. The cross becomes the tree of knowledge and life. As a consequence we will all who take up this cross of Jesus will die as men, to become one with God, i.e., through Jesus we get what Adam wanted, but only by following God's plan for us.

Moses was a sinner like you and me. He brought about a change in the history of man that was necessary at that time, a step towards the destiny of man. In the desert of Sinai his people complained of serpants biting them. What did he do. He raised a wooden staff with snakes entwined on it. An image of Jesus taking on the sin of the serpant to atone for man.

And it goes on step by pre-figured step. Mans understanding of God's law changes from the time for Abraham to the time of Moses to Elijah and Jesus. Man's reality tunnel was fashioned step by step. Thus what was seen as 'righteous' 3000 years ago is not so now, what you are looking at is the evolution of man's morality and ethics being fashioned for a purpose.

In the time of King David, you can see in Psalm 50 a recognition that blood sacrifice was not considered as worthy as a open and contrite conscience. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God puts an end to all such sacrifices (the Lamb of Exodus, a first born lamb without blemish to be shared for all at Passover, whose blood was to be put on the wooden door frame to give sign of God covenant to man). We are atoned for our sins by such an act once and for all in Jesus's passion.

As Jesus said (mentioned in my earlier posting) the rules of the Mosaic Law where made becuase man at that time and place had "hard hearts". It may have been right to make those rules then for those times, they are perfected under Christ.

As for the "unseen God". Actually he is there all for us all the time. But not in Cecille B DeMille production events. Elijah in the cave having been run out of town, waits on God to speak to him. He is not in the earthquakes, storms and lightning events that are goinf on outside. Elijah waits, then when its all blown over he talks to Elijah in a quiet whisper. That still voice that all of us have in quiet times - our inspired conscience.


You cannot easily read scripture and make sense of it unless you know the metanarrative.

I hope this makes more sense for you now.

Pilgrim4Truth, I'm confused. Are you saying that it is not really possible to read the bible and properly understand it unless you have already arrived at a sort of wider understanding of God's 'message' (if you like)? Have I understood your point correctly? If so, how do arrive at this understanding without reference to the bible?

If you are Jewish you read the Torah and the Bible in a certain way. It's understanding is something that in Hebrew I understand is called Midrash. The tradition is deep, and many understanding some naive Christians readers of the Bibble have are considered by Jewish scholars to be misguided.

In a similar way Christians read the OT and NT and make their own (and slightly different understanding), based on seeing scripture leading to its fullfiillment in the messiah. This is called in latin Exegesis. The tradiition is also deep.

For many Christians the tradition of 'sola scripture' is that the Bible is available to all (since Gutenburg) and can/should be read and understood simply by all without "guidance". But for many Theologians (who like to think about the details) that is a bit naive.

If you read the Bible without the Midrash/Exegesis you may miss the key point, not see the trees for the wood so to speak. That's why to a large extent there are 'Churches' so that individuals can discuss and work out what the message with others and decide on how to apply it in daily life.

Many Atheists can be annoyingly naive in their reading of the Bible. Finding verses and highliting them as being inconsistent with a metanarrative they are not aware off or choose to ignore. The 1st is OK as long as they are willing to learn, the other is just argumentative.

To illustrate my point I once read that an AI Translation Program from translating Russian to English and vice versa was once offered the text "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". It was translated to Russian then back to English as "the vodka is good but the meat is off". Meaning depends on context!

The interesting question about atheists picking holes in the bible is whether (as is often the case) they are doing it purely to make their own case and prove how stupid the bibical case is, or whether they are genuinely trying to explore it as an option and come to as unbiased a conclusion as possible. What you are saying, as well as what has been said to me about the bible before, I find confusing and frustrating. It seems to me that if the bible is really all that much use I should be able to sit down and read it without any 'help' (I am, I hope, not a moron) and understand what it says. If I have to have the whole thing explained to me before I get started (by someone, surely, who is only 'iterpreting' the text in their own way and who could, therefore, be wrong) then it seems to me to be somewhat flawed as a means of hearing, as I understand it, the word of God.
It is often frustrating to non-beleivers that religious people seem to need to tie themselves in logical knots trying to make sense of what they have before them, and this may be as much as anything why this whole debate can get rather bad tempered and why it can leave the non-believers among us asking 'if God is out there, why is it so bloody hard to find him?'.

BTW, I recommend anyone from either side of this debate who is really interesting in the whole question, espeically froma multi-faith perspective, should go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

I agree that it need not be that hard to find God if you approach with an open mind and heart. From a Christian perspective it is easier if you know the end, since it puts things into perspective (the metanarrative I have been mentioning).

Detailed Theological analysis is only necessary as for those folks who are interested in that kind of thing, or to provide full answers and rebuttals to those verses picked to challenge Theists.

It need not be complex at all if you are not in that situation.

reading the bible allows us to hear Gods word. however, it isnt written as a step by step instruction manual on how to live.

the bible is full of stories and advice from history. these can still be of use today and help us live now as God has never changed.
we need to study the bible to understand what it is saying. the need to study it doesnt make you a moron.

the gospels are the best place to start when wanting to explore christianity. these hav to be studied as Jesus taught his disciples in parables and therefore the meaning of it cant be found from just reding as you would a story, you need to study it to understand.

to fully understand the gospels though you need to have an open heart. God has to open your heart to his word. once you are open then you can understand the bible better. to fully understand you need Gods help, after all it is His word

I think another point is that our culture is very different to the one when the Bible was written so a lot of stuff seems weird to us and might need a bit of explanation. I mean, for example, the Bible says, "The Lord is my shepherd." When that was written there were shepherds all over the place. Everyone knew what it meant to be a shepherd. But have you ever met a shepherd? Probably not. I haven't anyway. So it would be useful in that context to be able to find out what shepherds did and what made them so special. If you get what I mean.

That's strange. My latest posting has simply disappeared. Never mind, as Somerset Maugham wrote in Moon and Sixpence many years ago:
The modern clergyman has acquired in his study of the science which I believe is called exegesis an astonishing facility for explaining things away.
I will leave you to continue without me. I'm obviously barking up the wrong tree.

An interesting story about Somerset Maugham. Maugham died in Nice on December 16, 1965. It is said that as he lay dying he asked Sir Alfred Ayer, a famous UK Atheist and Philosopher, visit him and reassure him that there was no life after death. Ayer told him there was no after life and Maugham passed away peacefully with the answer he hoped for.

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/maugham.htm

Some 20 years later on Ayer, after choking on a piece of smoked salmon, had a near death experience (NDE) for 4 minutes or so. On recovering he confided to his Doctor (and publically) thereafter that the NDE was vivid and he met the supreme being. Notwithstanding this just prior to his actual death in 1989 he said "... (of the NDE) it slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html

The question I would like to ask is why HOPE is necessary for such adamantine Atheists? Sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons of rejection (for some Atheists) is becuase a Theist beleives there is a judgement for what we do here and now, whereas an Atheist does not, and that suits them just fine.

I think, when you strip away the pseudo-scientific reference (so-called near death experiences), and the apparent complexity resulting from the emotional content of the attached anecdote, this question is actually quite a straightforward piece of fallacious reasoning.

What it boils down to is this:
A religious person believes that when we die we are judged and rewarded or punished eternally, accordingly.
The religious see that non-religious people do not believe that people are eternally rewarded or eternally punished (or that there is any kind of afterlife), so they tell themselves that non-religious people must be scared of being eternally punished, and that is the reason they do not believe an afterlife is a possibility.

The conclusion they come to presumes the answer to the issue at question, which is, is there an eternal existence? (containing punishment or reward).

(It also contains an implied moral judgment on the act of not-believing in god/judgment/afterlife, which in such a circular argument weights the conclusion even further in the direction the religious would already be inclined to lean).

Therefore the question is circular, and false.


Has anyone had any thoughts on my question from post 641:

If God is perfect, how could he need to create a world and populate it with people? If God were in existence, in the universe, or as part of the universe (whatever the exact arrangement is), and he was perfect, how could he suddenly _need_ to add something? If he is perfect, then he is/has everything he needs. He cannot lack anything, so he could not, as far as I can see, suddenly need to add anything. Adding the earth/humans and so on would mean that he _needed_ or _wanted_ them to come into existence, but if he was perfect already, he could not _need_ or _want_ anything besides what he already had. To suggest he did would mean he _lacked_ something, and was therefore less than perfect.

G8ch:

I'm confused about your first point- are you trying to answer the question 'is there life after death' or the question 'why do atheists hope there isn't life after death?'

As to your second point, it is possible for a perfect God to exist in an imperfect universe. As a human being I might be perfect in terms of my intellect, my emotional intellgience, my social skills and all the other elements that make up me and still be lonely and unfulfilled because I was on my own and had nothing to do, so I'm not sure your reasoning in this context is accurat. Having said that I still can't see that God is perfect.

Hi benjamin. The first part of my post is an answer to the question posed in the preceding post:
>>'Sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons of rejection (for some Atheists) is becuase a Theist beleives there is a judgement for what we do here and now, whereas an Atheist does not, and that suits them just fine.'

This supposed question is actually a statement, along the lines I described. It implies atheists wilfully choose not to believe in god because they feel guilty about the way they have lived (and by extension, specifically guilty about not believing in god), and convince themselves there is no afterlife, in order that they cannot be punished for these things. As a question, it includes the answer to the question in the premise, i.e. really, there is judgment, an afterlife, and atheists are afraid of it, which is why they convince themselves it's not true.

Re your second point, your example of a person perfect in various ways, but still unhappy doesn't seem to have any connection with whether god is perfect or not. If god is perfect, he cannot be unhappy or lack anything. He cannot _want_ company, for example, or he would not be perfect. If he were perfect, he would have everything he needed. This seems quite straightforward to me. Perfection is complete; if something lacks something then it is not perfect.

In your last point, are you suggesting that god might not be perfect? I believe some religions allow for this possibility, but when I posted that question ('Is god perfect?') previously, the two people who answered said he must be.

(BTW - I've just read my first post back, and if it sounds at all smug, I apologise. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't word it quite as well as I should have done).

G8h,

I think you raise proper points to address, I did not read it as smug - no worries

1/ Near Death Experience are not pseudo-scientific they are simply personnel subjective experiences. It's possible they have a supernatural dimension or maybe not. I think it's not proven either way conclusively, and may never be (something to take on faith perhaps).

2/ I don't think all Atheists are motivated 'not to believe' becuase of guilt, some might though. Afterall it's not an unlikely motivation for some who are in fact consciously or subconsciuously guilty to seek refuge from judgement. I appreciate though that many Atheists are such becuase of reasons nothing to do with guilt, but becuase of principled and rational objections (from their POV).

3/ My main point was to ask the question: "Why do some Atheist feel the need to express HOPE that their belief system is in fact valid". It appears to me it is an expression of faith. For example in Hebrews 11:1 it says "Faith is being sure of what we hope for. It is being certain of what we do not see.". I do not think it is inappropriate for Atheist to admit to having faith. I think it's an honest reflection of the reality of things (we all have faith Atheists and Theist alike, eg., having faith that reasoning can arrive at truth)

4/ The discussion of afterlife reward is somewhat similar to Pascals Wager (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) it is not a circular argument - as such.

5/ As for post 641: This is a theological question and is something well managed by Augustine and Aquinas amongst others (in the Christian tradition, other traditions handle this a bit differently). A short form (still a bit heavy going):

a)God is Love (the chief attribute of God), and in that respect is Perfect (as well as being the Logos, Truth, Justice, Light, etc., see 1 Corinthians 13).
b)Love is a relationship. In a relationship you have three parties. The party that chooses to Love, the party that is Loved and returns the Love. And the sustaining relationship of Love itself created between the parties, see John 15-17 (the fruit of the vine).
c)It's something you see in the 'trinity' concept as well as the sacrament of marriage between man and women some would say (as it does in scripture). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
d)Ultimately this is a mystery, since we are limited in our ability to fully appreciate the concepts of God's time and wisdom.
e)Such concepts are with God, not with man. In Genesis this is allegoricaly expressed in the fruit from the trees of life and knowledge, forbidden to man. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Life and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil
f)Man sinned when he attempted to make himself God. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
g)The 2nd Adam (Jesus Christ) became the 'fruit' on the tree of the cross by accepting God's will.
h)When we partake of the 'fruit' of Jesus body and blood in the eucharist we come into closer communion with God, and take a step towards receiving the fruit of the holy spirit.
i)The "fruits of the holy spirit" are: 'charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruits_of_the_Holy_Spirit )

Something like that, others may express it differently (and maybe simpler!).

In the past I remember losing the thread of the argument over the concept of Trinity explaining it as Lover/Loved, Loved/Lover and Love.

And I tried to explain it this way (by allegory).

Consider the concept of electromagnetism. You have a pole(N) and pole(S) and the 'field' between them. Having just one, or two makes no sense, you need all three to make a "system".

If you introduce a third party into the field (a bunch of copper wires say), and the field was moved for some reason. An electrical signal would be induced in the wires. It might serve some purpose, giving energy to the system.

If the wires (or after some time and evolution a resulting self-organized cybernetic network of wires and logic circuits, eg., a brain) was not aware of the field, it might consider the induced signal as something spooky .

A skeptical 'brain' might dismiss the phenomena as a category error, and be Atheist brains.

But if many 'brain's' started to get the same signal, and it was not random but exhibited some intelligence then those brains might develop a tradition and be Theist brains.

Now replace the 'Electromagnetic Field' -> 'Love', and the 'Energy' -> 'Consciousness', and you start to see what I am on about (just a little bit I hope).

But this is just an imperfect allegory - it's still a mystery!

(getting involved again against my better judgement but couldn;t let the below over generalisation go un challenged)

"we all have faith Atheists and Theist alike,"
Oh no we don't.

"eg., having faith that reasoning can arrive at truth"
I think you misunderstand the position of those who don;t need a god, and fail to understand the rationalist argument. And yes, I am purposefully not using the term 'atheist'.