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

As much as I like sticking up for, and violently agreeing with, anyone who dislikes Christianity, I feel compelled to point out that the difference between literal and figurative language is one of the easiest to master in all of English.

I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I dislike Christianity. That was not intended.

As for the distinction between literal and figurative language, I agree that it is a very simple distinction for anyone to make for themselves. Particularly in the area of religion, however, there is very little congruence between the distinctions made between the literal and the figurative by different individuals. For example, some think the first few chapters of Genesis is figurative while others think it is literal. There is, in my experience, a spectrum of understandings of the first few chapters of Genesis, from the strictly literal to the totally mythical with individuals standing at every point on that spectrum.

If you're Christian, now would be a good time to tell me.
Actually, the Genesis issue is not figurative, it's what's known as "Gnosis", ie in the Bible context hiding a deeper truth behind the surface. Or do you mean as in the Noah's Ark type figurative language, eg God causes the skies to darked and flood away the world, where there was simply historical and geological evidence of and earthquake, comet and tidal wave at the same time, or something?

Don't worry. I'm not going to start thumping my Bible at you. and certainly Justin the Preacher is not going to enjoy my company.

As far as the opening of Genesis being figurative language, the way you define "Gnosis" is something like how I would define Allegory, which is figurative language, and I'm not really sure what your syntax is saying about the Flood. I have a graduate degree on the subject of Wisdom Literature, and I certainly wouldn't have used Gnosis as a technical term in reference to the first bit of Genesis. I might use it if I were talking of Ecclesiastes, or Sirach, or Revelation, but probably not for Genesis. In any case, the fact is that many people do take the first bit of Genesis literally

I realise that Genesis is a bad example, but you'd already bought it up, so I had to use it. Rules of the game. There is a slight difference (I think, you're the one with the degree) between Gnosis and Allegory, besides the religious one - Gnosis isn't just but can be allegory, but allegory isn't Gnosis. Animal Farm is allegory, as is Revelations, but Ecclesiastes and the others....
So are you Christian or not?

I agree that Gnosis and Allegory aren't the same thing. I just find it hard to imagine how they came to be discussed in the same sentence. To me it's not apples and oranges, its apples and platypuses. I would say that Revelation is an allegorical presentation of one individual's (St. John's) Gnosis.

Anyway, I suspect the people who upset you would call me a filthy heathen. I live in the Western World, a culture absolutely permeated and steeped in two thousand years of Christian history. I would be lying if I said my ethics do not derive from Christianity. I do not, however, have a clue what the people who use it most loudly mean by "born again", I do not go to Church, I don't have an urge to go out and proselytise anything in particular. I suspect that in the views of both you and Justin the Preacher, I would not be considered a Christian. In the view of Osama bin Laden, however, I might reasonably be considered such, as I suspect he would consider all three of us. I don't have a quarrel with the label if somebody decides to give it to me. I'm not going to claim it for myself.

Is that a long enough answer?

Let's not assume that Osama bin Laden is ann irrational person who believes that
a) all Westerners are Christian, and that
b) all Christians should die.
*I* would say that Revelations is an allegorical representation of St John's psyche and insecurities in his two primal circuits at the time when he was smoking or eating whatever drug it was.

Osama bin Laden: it seems that many in the Bush administration agree that Osama believes both a) and b)

and Revelation:

I would say that Revelation is a book. After that I'd just be quiet and let people believe what they want about it. As long as they don't start yelling at me because I'm not shouting their beliefs from the rooftop. If they start yelling at me like that, I'll just go away.

Nice idea, but I'm an agressive-passive-solipsist-free will-agnostic anthropologist, or at least I am today, and so when people start believing it, I start getting angry and trying to disprove 'em. Actually, converting Christians is my hobby.
You don't believe what the Bush administration would have you believe that they believe, do you?

If the Bush administration told me I had two legs, I wouldn't believe it.

I have no desire to convert Christians, myself. They are causing me no harm. I do have an interest in understanding Christians and Muslims and Hindus, etc.: I share the world with them. But I have no desire to convert them.

Hah. Bush. What a fool.
See, I do want to convert Christians, on the basis that they aren't doing me any good. I can clearly see that they're wrong, and I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, I'm out to convert them like they try to convert me. Being of a philosophical bent (or I wouldn't be here), I'd rather have a world full of people who are to me at least slightly more rational and in favour of doing something about life now rather than waiting for it to be all sorted out in a place we don't know exists (rather like G. Bush the Second's brain, or anywhere, really), than those who are less rational and like me.

Come to think of it, the desire to convert probably springs from the desire to spread the gene pool. I must think further upon this, but hmmm.

Probably has something to do in my case with the fact that I was the only Atheist in a Catholic Primary school, and that I had an abusive stepdad. Oh well.
(Note to self - must make sure that I realise the difference between recognising something bad, and it not existing)
-m3

I'v just realized (ironically) that part of the reason I asked the question (or maybe the whole reason) is because I think it is important for people to realize their motivations.

I have to go for a while. It's the outside world that's pressing me, not the conversation. Talk to you later.

Several slightly relevant points.

1.) As far as I know, OBL claims that he doesn't hate westerners. He hates western culture, the American government, and infedels in Arabia. He just kills westerners to achieve his goals, he doesn't really have anything against them.

2.) I've heard an ineresting suggestion that Revelations wasn't intended to be literal, but was an attewmpt to get anti-Roman propeganda disseminated without getting the author crucified.

My personal view on trying to convert theists (or members of other religions) is that, as long as they don't talk about their beliefs publcly, I won't bother them. If they stop talking about their beliefs, I will stop trying to convert them. I only try to convince them they're wrong as long as they try to convince others they're right.

I figure that as long as they don't talk about their beliefs or try to force them on others (by others I include their kids), they aren't hurting anyone with them and, since their beliefs aren't their fault (they were probably brainwashed into them by their parents and clergy), let them belive whatever lunacy they wish.

Thomas Jefferson Quote: "It does not harm me whether my neighbor belives in one god, or a hundred"

However, if a theist trys to convert others or talks about their beliefs, I feel that I have a right to try to convince them that they're wrong.

One exception to this general rule is people like Justin the Preacher. By this I mean people who feel it is their goal in life to force their beliefs on all others and especially fundamentalists; regaurdless of their religion. These people convince me that they are a danger to society and I feel its my duty to counter everything they say on a subject involving religion to protect others from them.

Eto Demerzel - fair enough, I just don't happen to agree.
R. Daneel Olivaw - b) is the most interesting theory I've heard for ages. But surely merely using a pen name would be enough, especially if one was in the huddled masses of peasants who are only slightly catalogued and thus untraceable?
Anhaga - as my mental note said, realising a thing doesn't change it, except in the quantum sense. Ponder that, if you will.

Wouldn't work. Yeah, the author wouldn't get crucified, but the Romans would still supress the book. They wrote it in such a way that it wouldn't be clear to the Romans what they were talking about.

Hi Eto .

"My personal view on trying to convert theists (or members of other religions) is that, as long as they don't talk about their beliefs publcly, I won't bother them. If they stop talking about their beliefs, I will stop trying to convert them. I only try to convince them they're wrong as long as they try to convince others they're right."

Which makes you as bad as them, if not worse. To deliberately set out to destroy someone's honestly held belief, when they are doing no real harm, but as we do here are willing to discuss them openly, is assault.

I spent the best part of six months countering the arguments of Justin the Preacher. He ridiculed me and my faith, and distributed every slander imaginable about me and 'my kind'. Yet not once did I try to convert him away from his 'christianity'.

You cannot attack people for exercising their freedom of speech, as long as they are not trying to oppress the freedoms of others or make them unhappy.

"I figure that as long as they don't talk about their beliefs or try to force them on others (by others I include their kids), they aren't hurting anyone with them and, since their beliefs aren't their fault (they were probably brainwashed into them by their parents and clergy), let them belive whatever lunacy they wish."

Your assumptions are so wide as to make you as bad as the people you claim to despise. Talking about your beliefs is not 'forcing' people to accept them. Bringing your children up in a particular culture, particularly one with a faith component, is not evil or necessarily oppressive.

Or would you have all us parents totally abandon our cultures and enter Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? Where the alternative is a government controlled diet of homogenized, culture and conflict free education?

One of your saddest assumptions is that most people who have some sort of faith only have it because they were brainwashed. You really give far too much credit to both parents and the 'clergy'. Could it not be that many people hold onto their faith because they see some sense in it and because it serves a personal need in themselves?

If we look at the evidence children normally lose their faith in a God around the age of twelve (it outlasting Santa and the Tooth Fairy by three years on average). Of those adults you see all about you who profess a faith, over 75% have refound it in later life. Which rather confounds your assumption on the brainwashing.

Indeed it is positively amazing that anyone regains any faith whatsoever, given the cultural climate in which we live. Where holding any sort of faith is misunderstood, demeaned and stigmatized. To many small-minded people it is tantamount to admitting to having a mental illness.

So why do we bother? What drives us to continue despite the prejudice?

This is one of the most interesting and long-running debates here on h2g2. I would love you to contribute to that debate, but I would advise you to leave your assumptions at the door or you are going to get a fair old bouncing about .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Eto, apologies for Math, he's just trying to give you a rough start in life on HooToo, to shock you so it's easier for him to imprint his views on your mind...

"Which makes you as bad as them, if not worse. To deliberately set out to destroy someone's honestly held belief, when they are doing no real harm, but as we do here are willing to discuss them openly, is assault."

Perhaps. I feel that its only fair. If they want to try to convert me, I'll try to convert them. If they stop, I'll stop. I don't see them trying to convert me as something bad--I just feel that if they want to convert me, they are giving me the right to try to convert them.

"I spent the best part of six months countering the arguments of Justin the Preacher. He ridiculed me and my faith, and distributed every slander imaginable about me and 'my kind'. Yet not once did I try to convert him away from his 'christianity'."

I've read what you and he said, and I wish I had the self control you do. Personally, I wouldn't bother to convert him, because its pointless, but I feel that you would have been justified in trying to, if you wished.

"You cannot attack people for exercising their freedom of speech, as long as they are not trying to oppress the freedoms of others or make them unhappy."

I'm not attacking them. I'm not telling them "You can't say that." or "You shouldn't say that." I'm mwerely exercising my free speech as well. They want to tell me to beleive in their god. Fine. I'll tell them why I don't believe in their god and don't think he's real.

"Your assumptions are so wide as to make you as bad as the people you claim to despise. Talking about your beliefs is not 'forcing' people to accept them. Bringing your children up in a particular culture, particularly one with a faith component, is not evil or necessarily oppressive."

I don't dispise them. I merely think that they're wrong. Talking about beliefs may not be. However, if you tell a small kid to believe something, and then take them to chuch and have the precher tell them to belive that thing, and then explain to them that they are going to hell if they don't, and repeat this weekly; they'll start to believe it and be brainwashed to the point that they can't question it once they're old enough.

Teaching reigion, or the lack of it, is fine. However, you shouldn't do it to kids under say, 10.

You have some good points. I don't have time to give a full responce now.

I would like to debate on that, but I need to practice a bit before I'm ready to try to debate with you meaningfully, I think.

Can you tell me any threads where this is being debated (actively or inactively). I'd like to read them before I try to discuss this and make a fool of my self. (Not that I'm not a bit of a fool.)