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

How old was Mary, does anyone know, when god did his business with her

Just a question

Dunno about how old she was, but can we just clear something up. At the time a "virgin" was an unmarried woman, not a woman who had never had sex.

There are many different interpretations of the word 'virgin', i think during that period it meant more of a women who hasnt given birth yet, as opposed to being unmarried.

Just a question again, were Mary and Joesph married

Can god create something which is in any way greater than he is? Quite possibly not, I would have to concede. IS God capable of creating something smart enough to question or challenge him? Can't see why he couldn't do that. For this debate rests on two fundamental points:-

-Is God intellectually infallable, or could be persuade him that a decision he made was wrong
-Is there a 'perfect morality' or a correct moral judgement open to debate- even with God.

The question of the precise meaning of the word 'Virgin' is an interesting one. I have heard before the idea that a virgin would merely be considered an unmarried woman (because, socially, no unmarried woman could possibly not be a virgin) and it does rather challenge the virgin birth, although I don't know that it is necessarily central to all modern christians. This mis-translation issue crops up all over the bible, which, in the context of a conversation about the existence of God, rather weakens its value as serious evidence, if you ask me.

Um, this is not a very solid ground, and i'm trying hard to understand what you mean by persuading God he made a mistake, somewhere, anywhere. He obviously .has. created beings who question him; but can they prove him 'wrong'?. If God is fallible in any sense, than what is to fall? It's not meant as a rhetorical question, either. What you say necessiates greater .intelligence. than God, methinks.

Well I guess God, just like anyboby else, makes decisions about what to do at any given times. If God is fallable, then those decisions, just like anybody else's, could be wrong. Therefore is it possible for God to hold his hands up and say 'fair enough, I was wrong, I shouldn't have done that' or not. Can he ever be wrong?

You highlighted a point which demonstrates the impossibility of our thinking outside the sphere we're used to. It's only human and usual, i think. But wrong.

God, just like 'anybody else'? Point is, i think he's nowhere like anything he ever created. We don't create, we make, and what we make resemble us. They consist of the same substance as we. But, the way i believe in God, he's not created us in his likeness- leave alone the mortal body, not even the soul is anything like him.

Moreover, we live in a universe that provides us with the need to decide. Things out of our control forces us to decisions. But try to imagine that nothings ever exists, else than you. It's not the same thing as our decisions.God obviously decided to create; but in a situation where this decision was not referanced on anything else than himself. So, again, what can possibly be thought as 'wrong', when the only referance point is God himself? And how do we show him something he hadn't seen or thought, when the very consepts of thought, mind, decision, right and wrong are only parts of his creation? My logic says it's impossible for God to be wrong, or even need to be 'right'. He just is.

Raised Catholic, become 'neo-agnostic', ... a comment or two.

If we, ie: mankind, truly created a new life form. Not just cross bred, or genetically mutated them, but "made from scratch"... And they achieve self-awareness, might not 'we' (Earthling mortals) be seen as 'God'?

"In his image" or 'likeness ... Physical, intellectual, inquisitiveness (fully separate from the physicals ...) Likeness is just as open to interpretation as 'how high is up?'

I will never fault somone for their beliefs, only how they might use or exploit them. But as with the sciences, any belief structure or system, there will always be more questions than answers. And so, unto each their own ...

I very well know that many definitions of God allow such a thing- i mean, what many people call Gods are simply stronger and immortal [or hard to kill] versions of human beings.

Tho it will the the third time i repeat this, according to my particular deifinition of God, God does not consist of atoms. He probably doesn't move [where would he move?] or make sounds or drinks things etc etc.

So, by this definition, can humans 'create' a new life form? Will it consist of anything other than cells like we do, or more basically, protons and electrons and neutrons and things? We can only make them, i think.

And if they 'saw' us as Gods.. I have a definite perception of God and that doesn't apply to humans, actually to nothing that's dependent on something else or has a beginning. Their seeing us as Gods would be like what Greeks thought as Gods. Which's not very satisfying when those gods go about bickering and are no more content than us.

No, they couldn't see humans as Gods the way i see God.

And yes, there'll always be more questions than answers. And yes, each to their own.

AnarchistDuck- YOu've talked all along about the God you personally belive in, but I'm not entirely (well, remotely) clear where you draw your interpretation of God from. It seems, insofar as I understand anything, a little to... I don't know far from human experience, if you like, to fit inb with the tradditional christian view. Obviously I fall down on not being at all familliar with the perceptions of God held by other religions. You seem comfortable to draw 'logical' conclusions from your idea of God (how can God be wrong if the only reference point is God) which seem to be to be making assumptions based on assumptions. I'm sorry if that's a harsh or mean thing to say, I'm curious as to weather to belief is a certainty, or just an honest opinion.

Um, i'm sorry i think i didn't understand all you've said. You think it doesn't fit with the christian view and is far from human experience? I'm a bit dense at times

How to say it- i define God in a certain way, and once having done that; yes i logically examine this consept and decide what fits and what not- It's a thought experiment. Does it have holes in it so you think it's not really logical [as you said 'logical']?

It's not a certainity as gravity is- i don't claim this nor like people who do. It's just belief, but this certainly entails some logic and this logic can include and exclude some definitions.

But i'm sure it's all so badly worded anyway .

I can disprove your carrot, BB.

If it's pink, it can't be invisible. You can't have something that's both invisible and pink.

So there!

I'm sure you'll rest easier for knowing that there isn't an invisible pink carrot floating above your garden.

But I can't help with the unicorn. Perhaps you ought to leave some carrots out for him. Feed him up. Wouldn't want an angry unicorn, would we?

TRiG.

Oh, aren't unicorns supposed to be very harmless, pure, innocent creatures? I daresay it wouldn't be angry even if hungry

"Were Mary and Joesph married?"

Engaged, not married.

But it had to be broken off by divorce, as an engagement at that time was seen as binding.

Joseph was going to divorce her, but an angelic visitor convinced him not to.

So he married her and "had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus". The implication being that he did 'have intercourse' with her *after* she gave birth to a son. Sorry, no 'Holy Mary, ever virgin'.

Matt. 1:18-25. (The Luke account has more detail, including the rather beautiful prayer Roman Catholics call The Magnificat.)

TRiG.

I think it might be me being plain stupid; but i don't see why people regard being a virgin ever as 'holy'. Life is holy and sex is part of it. To reject parts of life don't look like a merit to me.

AnarchistDuck:

1) I guess see your perception of God as being self-supporting (hence, I guess, not 'logical') in the sense that you assume things you can't prove on the basis of other things you can't porve. This bugs me personally because I want to be sure of things, but there's no reason why it should be a problem for you.

2) Are you saying you would leave a poor Unicorn unfed simply because it wouldn't get angry? That's extremely mean. I don't think Unicorns eat Carrots anyway, maybe some maize or something.

I think we're looking at it very differently. If i was basing my thoughts on provable things i think this thread would be in SEx, wouldn't it

Perhaps i've failed to explain my thoughts properly. It goes- IF there's such a being that has these qualities, would it be possible for him to do this or that? I don't see why it's not logical in itself. If you need to be sure- well, that's the point, one cannot be sure as one's sure to have a hand at the end of each arm. If it's self-supporting how is that bad? I suspect i'm misunderstanding or failing to understand you, tho

If the concept i offer you is not plausible to you because it's self-contradicting i'll understand that and examine my own thoughts. But if you're not comfortable with it because it does not rest on proof- well, i never said it does.

Don't unicorns eat grass like horses? If it's summer and i have a garden i think it can take care of itself Perhaps it'd like some sugar tho..

<>

Taboo, exactly right, and I wonder why?

Ah, the Eye of God... I have that photo in 'My Pictures', it's so

For myself I would rather trust a rationalised certainty than an insctinctive 'gut' idea if I was going to have a notion of God- I guess that is at least in part about the people who, as has already been discussed, use God as a banner for some appaling behaviour despite having a position that isn't remotely definsible rationaly. As I said, that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly acceptable basis for personal faith, just not mine.
I think the idea of a tabboo against belief in God comes largely from a change of ideas (from the mythical to the rational, if you like) and determination to accept only one version of the thought process (rational rather than instinctive, just as under previous popes science was dismissed just as quickly) an unwillingness to let people have their own point of view and the number of people who will insist on forcing their own world view on everyone else.
Where I am, there is a hosepipe ban. I'm not sure there is enough grass for a largish unicorn to eat.