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

Ouch, Col Sellers, that's harsh! I know you may not agree with the Bible, but saying it's a terrible document goes a little far, doesn't it? Well, I know you hate all organized religions, but why do you pick on Christianity so much? For every war caused by Christians, there are just as many caused by, say, Muslims or Hindus or Jews or any other major religion. "2000 years of history proves it." So what about the thousands of years before Christ was around? You know, the time when Christianity didn't exist. Is that time in human history meaningless?

As for the good in Christianity, I of course can think of plenty of examples. But I can see where you're coming from. With all the death and pain mankind causes in the name of some God, it's hard to see the good. But there is some: what about Mother Therese? You can't deny that she lived, and made a difference in the world. Another example is what I'll be doing next weekend: it's called Convoy of Hope, and basically all the poor and homeless in my city come to this football field where they can get free groceries, free medical care and dental checkups and haircuts, free clothes, and a lot more stuff. And it's all free, so they can afford it! Who do you think could make that happen? And no, Christians will not be shoving the Gospel down the throats of those who come. Our role is to love our neighbors, not choke them.

As for that Ananias story, I'll repeat what I said last time: I still don't understand why God killed her. That was up to Him. Also, I read the same news you do, about people using the Bible to justify their actions, and I'm as sickened by them as you are. But humanity's like that- they'll always grab onto the one thing that will let them do what they want and still get away with it. You'll find that in any religion, culture, race, etc etc etc. Judging a whole group of people on it, however, isn't right, or fair. I haven't said one negative thing about your beliefs, so why are you attacking mine?

I totally agree with you on respecting people's beliefs only if they can support them, Xanatic. That's only reasonable, and always makes for more interesting conversation! Now, about Lot: when you remember the story, do you recall that his daughters deliberately got him drunk so they could continue the family line? Could you give me a reference where God calls Lot one of his best men? I can't find a verse like that anywhere. He's not even mentioned in the list of great characters in Hebrews 11. As for the death penalty for lying: I think you're referring to Ananias and Sapphira here, and I still don't have an answer for you. This may sound like a cop-out, but it's the best I have to give you: there are things about God that we will never understand. We're not meant to, I guess. I personally think it's a bit harsh too, especially as it's right after Jesus died preaching a gospel of love and freedom from the law. Again, I'm not trying to duck the question, but I guess God must have had His reasons. Sorry- I'll ask around and try to get a solid answer for that.
Rebecca

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Rebecca: Mother Theresa was a fantastic woman, I'm not going to argue that, but I must show you the flip side. She was after all preaching birthcontrol in overpopulated, undernourished, diseaseridden indian villages. Turning vegetarian hindu's practicing birthcontrol into meat-eating catholics not practicing birthcontrol is not really such a good idea when every child means a danger to the foodsupply, and every goat or cow killed means less milk to everyone. There is a reason cows are sacred in India, and it's not because they're supposed to live fully to reincarnate perfectly.

I apologize for the long sentence.

The Convoy of Hope really seems like a good idea. However, being nice is not really a christian thing. Every religion has a "be-nice" part. (Even Anton LaVey's Satanism can be used as excuse for acting in a generally good way, but that's another discussion) Even atheists perform random acts of kindness.

JAR

Here, have a

{I suspect colSellers is picking on christianity largely because you are christian - it's always easier to show people the dangers of religion if you focus on their own religion. Upon hearing an exploration of the evils of, say, Islam, then less intelligent christians than yourself have been known to grasp the wrong end of the straw and claim that this shows that Islam is evil and there is no God but Yahweh}

Hmm - I must partially agree with Rebecca here - people use xtianity to justify evil actions, but they also use science. Darwin was used to justify eugenics at one point, was it not? So what's the difference? Well, at no point in Origin of Species does it say that eugenics should, must, or ought to be used. But the bible happily says that you should strike down children who curse their parents.

That sort of direct and unequivocable commandment is easily misinterpreted as being a direct and unequivocable commandment which should be directly and unequivocablly followed. Whereas in fact, it's just a metaphor/old law/nonrelevant/for theocratic societies only. As opposed to the ten commandments, of course, which should be directly and unequivocably followed. Unless following them would mean doing something evil, in which case you shouldn't. I'd hate to see the bible fall into the hands of someone who couldn't do all of the correct interpretations and translations, like, say 99.9% of the world - something terrible could happen!

I'll happily vote for a special sanitised bible to replace the current one, with all the stupidities and injustices edited out. Plus, then it'd be a handy pocket-size. Combine that with a little reeducation of those preachers with a direct phoneline to hell, and Christianity would be a lot more pleasant religion. And, knowing human nature, a lot less popular...

Rebecca - have you considered that the events in Acts 5 did not happen, and that they're only a metaphor for God's displeasure at those who don't give of their fullest?
Or that God told the author to tell this white lie in order to speed the adoption of christianity, and hence save a whole bunch more souls?
Both make more sense than a good God acting in an evil way...

The problem with respecting beliefs only if they can be supported is that whether a belief is supported or not is a matter of opinion.

two more things...

Good work on the Convoy of Hope thing - though I don't see it's relevance to religion - I've always find religious sponsorship of aid kind of weird - but then I guess it's no stranger than my local bank sponsoring childcare, or my college union sponsoring a "help the unborn baby murderers" campaign {They don't call it that. And I *am* pro-choice, before anyone goes off on wild tangents}.

Last thing I can claim to have done is give 50p to a beggar, week ago. *sigh* And that made me feel guilty cos it was blatantly not going to solve anything. Charity does tend to instill a sense of pointlessness in me - it always seems like pissing against the wind of capitalism and "free" markets. {blinks and gets back on track} And I didn't even try and force my beliefs down the guys throat: what a wasted opportunity!

And, finally... {yep - I'm going for that new News at Ten post}

If there was ever a good place to criticise people's beliefs or lack of such in god, it would be a forum called "God". Feel free.

Dilbert - "Criticism is always constructive because it makes the person giving the criticism feel superior".

Lucinda: I don't think giving to charity need be pointless-the trick is to find one that you can actually see working.
I had the same view as you once, but actually started buying the Big Issue because it was somerthing to read on the train. it soon became apparent to me that this was a genuinely worthwhile cause that was enabling a disenfranchised portion of society to feel worthwhile. Since I started buying it regularly, three vendors in my local town have moved into permanent housing and are no longer selling.
You can make a difference, and you should never stop trying to.

Hold on, isn't anti-semitism in the bible a contradiction is terms, I mean Jesus was a Jew wasn't he?

This post has been removed.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of the SAB - they always seem a touch overpicky - which draws attention, imo, away from the really BIG injustices and contradictions.

I find them useful mostly as reference material. When I can't think of where those kids get mauled by bears, and who the prophet was, I zip over there to their cruelty page, then do a search for the word "children" until I find the right passage. Sure beats keeping my own encyclopedia of all the stuff I want to refer back to. I think there are some of their entries where they seem to be reaching to make their point, partially to make their lists look a little bigger and more impressive. Taken as a whole, it's a pretty useful reference, but just as with everything else, you need to read the source material yourself, and in context, before you decide if they're making a worthwhile point.

Sorry that i was rude
it is just that no
matter how many
arguments for religion
I here belif in a
God who has a
personaliity still seems
silly to me.
Please by all means
belive what u like
but please back it
up with some thing!
Ok i am not puting
forward loads of
convincing arguments
for the non-existance
of a God with a personality
but I belive it is not
nessisary in the same way
that it is not nessisary
to argue for the non-existance
of fairys at the bottom of
the garden but I refute u
to come up with any
convincing argument for
them.

Peace &gt

I know I'm jumping in about three days late, but better late than never! This is in response to Col Sellers comment that Paul wasn't Jewish. Well, hate to correct you, but he *was* Jewish- he was a Pharisee, and studied under Gamaliel, another strict Pharisee. In fact, he lead the Jewish movement against the early Church. There are lots of verses that contradict this charge of anti-semitism: Romans 10:12, for example, preaches love for all people, not hate. And about Matt 27:25, I don't fully understand it yet. But it's not a very strong defense for anti-semitism. Like I said earlier, people will use any defense they can get their hands on to justify their actions, regardless of race, religion, nationality, whatever. Just because it's used as an excuse doesn't mean that's the verse's intent. The people are just saying that they'll take responsibility for Jesus' death. It's up to God to mete out punishment, not mankind.

Rebecca

Just wanted you to know that I did look at it. In fact, I spent quite a while just going through the different problems they have with the Bible. And I totally agree with both Col Sellers and Lucinda that it's highly picky- sometimes it seems like they're desperate to find something wrong with it! And a lot of stuff is taken out of context. And about that passage with Elisha sicking some bears on those kids, my Bible has a note about that. Bethel, where Elisha was coming from, was majorly into Baal worshiping, and the people were exceedingly against the prophets of God. Elijah, Elisha's predecessor, had just been taken up to heaven by God by a "chariot of fire and horses of fire" in a whirlwind. So, when the kids said "go on up, you baldhead!" they wanted him to follow Elijah; in otherwords, die. Also, the translation "youth" usually refers to people in their late teens. Elisha was confronted with a crowd of 16-18-year-olds who hated his guts. (I just noticed- I'm looking at a NIV version which says youth, not children.) Elisha's life was in danger. And not to split hairs, but Elisha himself doesn't actually call out the bears; he just curses the kids. Look at 2 Chron. 36:15-16. God was really ticked that they were threatening his messenger, and so protected Elisha. I know you think this still fits in with your argument about the Bible teaching violence, but in this case it's more like self-defense, or if you agree that God sent the bears rather than Elisha, a case of God protecting his own. If I was confronted with about 40-odd teenagers in the middle of nowhere, I'd start praying too! And God answers his cry. This is one example of one of the problems I have with the site: it doesn't look into the passages it's condemning, just condemns them. I'd be a lot more impressed if they actually went back to the original Greek, Aramic, and Hebrew and looked at the real meanings of the words rather than the translated meanings. A lot of their claims wouldn't hold up if they did that.

Rebecca

NIV? I really do recommend you get yourself a new bible. That version was commissioned by apologists looking to give new meaning to the scriptures, to make them more relevant and stand up stronger to criticism. It is the most impure translation there is, even more so than the KJV. The one I have here is one I consider very reliable, commissioned by Catholics in the US in the 70's. One of the signs of a good translation is that there will be notes in the margins that discuss difficulties with the text, rather than always having a ready answer to each questionable verse. For instance, the note on the controversial geneology of Jesus in Matthew reads in part, "The number 14 is undoubtedly a mnemonic device, perhaps chosen because the numerical value of the three letters of David's name (DVD )yields in Hebrew the sum of 14." That is the voice of a rational scholar who has been able to distance his beliefs from the work and study it somewhat objectively. He doesn't try to tell me it is literal truth, and it's a good thing, too, because it is incompatible with the one in Luke.

Anyway, in my much more reliable translation, the Elisha episode reads: "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some *small boys* came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up, baldhead," they shouted, "go up, baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the *children* to pieces." It is impossible to extrapolate from this episode that we are talking about hostile teenagers with intent to do bodily harm. Anyone who does so is guilty of the most extremely irresponsible scholarship known to man. A literal reading of this episode reveals a horrible god who slaughters innocent children for doing what every child does, which is make fun of others. And your reference to 2Chronicles is completely irrelevant. In the first place, you are talking about events distanced by several hundred years, and in the second place, it still shows no episode of violence toward the prophets, only disrespect.

As for the Matthew quote and anti-semitism, it is not my stance that it defends anti-semitism. However, it has been one of the chief references used by the KKK and other hate groups in modern times, and the Catholic Church in more ancient times. And you're taking my criticism of the SAB too far... yes, they do tend to reach a bit, but they also point out a large number of valid problems with the bible and the popular dogma that is loosely based on it. Just as in any court case, some of their arguments are weaker than others, but the arguments are still there to be made. They stick to the KJV because that is the most popular version, and they want to open people's eyes to what they can read in their own home. It's very difficult to get your message to the lay person when you get caught up in translation and word derivation and context and history and...

I have to say this is way too deep for me.
All I have to say is are cool.
Soory I'm wasting space aren't I?
I do apologise but religion has but one point and that is to be the opium of the people.

Its all very well
to question the
texts this way and
that but why should
i believe that any
interpretation is the
word of 'God' ?

We have heavily considered
the bible but we
neglect the other texts
Koran etc is this because
none of us know any thing
about them?

If the bible is so hard
to translate and to
interpret why dose god
not deliver a new text
to us the modern people
and to make it hyper relevant
perhaps he could email it to ev one?