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

http://www.h2g2.com/A208333 - an entry on "101 of God's worst mistakes" - please carry on this conversation there... (and no, it's not my entry... )

> "He should have let people remain ignorant of his presence. We're probably better off that way, in the long term."

Mankind suffers from it's Burdens... but not as much as it does from it's Messages...

My uncle the fundamentalist got into the religious debate with me when he visited from Arkansas, and he mentioned that "New Covenant" nonsense. Oddly enough, he couldn't find it anywhere in my bible... he blamed my translation. I do remember something about him not replacing the old law, however... I'll have to look it up.

Anyway, the New Testament is no better than the Old. Jesus kills a tree out of pertulance. He tells people they must hate their own families to follow him. A couple is stricken dead for failing to give Peter all their possessions and money. This is a moral guide??

Tsk tsk, the Bible has these really great numbers for each verse and line and such. So why don´t you use those everytime you quote it? Would make it easier for the rest of us to check up on it.

Anyways, the thing about Thou shalt not kill is really the thing that is written in small typing: "Unless of course they have another race, religon or opinion in anyway." And it also regards humans, which there is no clear definition of, so every time you need to kill anybody, simply make them appear inhuman. That trick has been used a number of times.

Plus it means that dolphins (for example) rather get it in the neck....

Tsk tsk my ass. I happen to be writing this from work, so my bible isn't handy. However, if you want some more thorough biblical commentary with verses fully quoted and referenced, take your condescending attitude over here: http://www.h2g2.com/a213247

And now that I am home and free to look this sort of thing up:

- Jesus declares the old law still very much in effect: Matt 5:17-20

- Jesus kills the fig tree because it doesn't bear fruit, figs being out of season. A rather pathetic act by one who can create food and wine, don't you think? Mark 11:12-14; 11:20-21

- "If anyone comes to me without turning his back on his father and mother, his wife and his children, his brothers and sisters, indeed his very self, he cannot be my follower." Luke 14:26 This same verse in the Gospel of Thomas, which predates the four gospels of the Bible, reads thus: "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me."

- The couple is killed by God or some other mysterious power as "justice" for withholding their own money: Acts 5:1-11

Hokay, this conversation is taking an ugly turn.
Allthough the Bible says all these things, please remember that the book is only a translation of some (carefully selected) ancient scrolls and letters. That means that no matter what a Bible-critic says, an no matter how an atheist interprets it, a christian can allways claim a different translation or interpretation. How then, can we argue against someone's religion?

I wonder what would happen if they found the mising scroll from the beginning of the book

Quote from Red Dwarf:

"To my beloved Candy,
All characters in this novel are ficticious and any similarity to persons living or dead are completely coincidental"


sorry peeps, just had to

LOL!

Somebody (me) wrote a fascinating Guide Entry on this topic at

http://www.h2g2.com/A262739

You should all check it out immediately.

re: JAR

If they claim a different translation, the question then becomes - "why is this mistranslated in your bible? Are you deliberately trying to lead people astray?" Comparisons with Satan rapidly become difficult to avoid...

Interpretation is all very dodgy - but I've yet to see anyone interpret the fig-withering episode as anything other than Jesus withering a fig because it displeased him for being natural. The claim that his followers would be able to do the same, on the other hand, has so many different re-interpretations it's just starting to get funny...

One _could_ claim that the Bible is in fact written by humans, inspired by God, and is therefore fallible. But since it _is_ the Holy Scripture, is it also the most infallible available to humans. (This is where stuff gets really dodgy. I'm just trying to see my opponents point of view...) One _could_ claim that the authors of the different scripts have misinterpreted the messages from God (due to humans distance to God after the whole Bad Apple Incident), or that the translators have misunderstood the original authors meaning (again, du to Mans falling from God).
Of course, in claiming any of this it becomes impossible for anyone with a neutral (or hostile) point of view to take _anything_ written in the Bible seriously. However, telling a Christian that might incur their wrath, and since all the Christian people I know are nice people, I have never ventured that argument...

Unfortunatly I am completely unfamiliar with the fig-bit. Do you have a reference to the place in the Blasted Book where I can find it? I am intrigued by that...

JAR, wishing he had read the Bible, not just skimmed parts of it

They confuse me these Christians
They say every thing in there
dam book is true then if
you Question its hypocrisy
or its contradictions
then they say it is fallible to
human error? can they not make
up there mind?
DONT LET THEM IN TO YOUR HOME
THEY ARE UNstable!

Jk

If an alien came across a copy of the bible, they would probably mistake it for a novelisation of some sort of ancient soap opera.

JAR - try Mark 11:12-14; 11:20-21 - as colSellers said...

Okay - I've read the previous postings and I don't quite understand why the topic of religion makes many of you so angry. Okay, so you're atheists, fine, whatever but surely if others want to believe and follow a religion that should be fine too. You blast people for following religion and 'shoving it down the throats' of others when you're banging on yourself just as much on why YOU think we SHOULDN'T believe in religion. I was brought up a Roman Catholic, I went to Roman Catholic schools. As a child I believed in God, as an adult I don't (I personally believe that all religions were born out of ignorance) This doesn't make me angry of what I was taught as a child, I don't feel bitter of the 'brainwashing' I received. I have fond memories in fact of church and the religious aspects of both home and school life. I care no more of what people choose to believe in than I do of what sexuality people choose or what political party they support etc etc etc...
My point is I just don't think it's fair to ridicule people for something just because you don't believe in it yourself. If they're not hurting you what's the harm?

I personally don't blast other religions. Like you, I have no particular bad experiences with Christianity or any other faith. However, there are people who would argue that someone else's religious beliefs have harmed them.

I have one friend, for instance, who was raised strictly Catholic. One part of his church's (and thus his parents') beliefs is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice that must be forsaken by 'true' Christians. When he found he could only be attracted to men, this caused him to very much hate himself as an adult. He also had very real fears that his parents would disown him and throw him out if they found out his orientation. In the end, he was lucky that they did not. But how many teens commit suicide over these fears, beget by religious beliefs they amd are their families were taught?

Other people will tell you they have been discriminated against, or made outcast, because they do not agree with the predominant religion in their area. I know, for instance, of a family from India which has routinely lost local business to their establishment by locals who don't want to 'encourage' their Hindu beliefs. And I know of a woman who has recently moved to a small community in the Southern US who can't get a date or basic friendship because she is an atheist and can't ally herself with one of the area's church communities.

It is fair to say that different people have different experiences. For some, religion is useful or benign. For others, organized religion does indeed cause people in their community to harm them directly or indirectly.

Religions are born of ignorance, and if people cared enough to research it just a bit, religion would die. Instead, we have more religion than we can possibly handle in the US. And when people vote, their personal religion comes into play. As a result, they generate all sorts of harm whose only basis is "God's will." Christianity is about intolerance, and I don't think I can tolerate any more of that.

As a Londoner, I can't expect you to understand what it is like being a non-Christian in the US. In the UK, the social center is the pub. In the US, it is the church. If you frequent the pub, you 're labelled an alcoholic. A nonbeliever finds himself navigating through social circles from the periphery, limited to family contacts and those people they might happen to meet through school or work. Atheist can find less acceptance than gays, because at least gays have places all their own. And this my experience from the liberal West Coast, someone in the Deep South is in deep trouble.

Anyway, other than that bit of backlash where I felt I was being insulted (and my apologies to the rest of you) I haven't noticed that this conversation was about belittling anything. It seems to me to be a fairly rational discussion, which is the kind of thing we need.

Or, indeed, them to harm themselves...

Personally I don't have a _real_ problem with proselytysing religions - I view it as an extreme irritant - but the same way I'd view people walking up to me on the street and trying to persuade me that the sky is a rather interesting shade of purple, or that the Liberal Democrats will get elected into government, or that aliens have landed. Idiots are annoying, regardless of their form of idiocy...

That said, if I walk into a xtian church I expect people to tell me that Jesus Christ died for my sins - if someone walks into a thread titled 'God' they should expect to hear debate about whether God exists, what he's for if he does, and what colour his beard is. Going around to people's homepages and telling them that their religious beliefs are garbage - THAT would be unacceptable...

The first chapter of Genesis is actually an ancient form of poetry. Although some of this form is lost in translation the poetic form can still be seen in the way that each verse ends similarly, ie. "And there was evening, and there was morning - the ... day" Other contempory poetry has been found that supports this. This also explains why chapter 2 tells the same story all over again but in a very different style. Obviously they are not written by the same author.

The first translation query occurs in Genesis 1 verse 2, one word can be translated two different ways to give two entirely different meanings to the whole creation story. I won't bore everyone by going in to the details now but if anyone is interested then just ask.

Finally, the Christian upbringing I was given made me suicidal. I am not prejudiced against anyone and I will defend everyone's right to believe what they want but if any Christians read this then perhaps they could take note and be aware of what they may potentially do to people.