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

Yes, I like that. I like the way mankind 'parabalises' those things which are difficult to explain with words too

I like it too

It's very accurate!

Glad you like it.

Hi, friendlywithteeth. Belated congratulations on your A levels.

The point about using parables to explain difficult concepts is an interesting one.

The big "pro" is that you can explain things to people according to their abilities (Jesus and "the" Buddha were big on this...)

The big "con" is that tranmission of the parables can lead to a focus on the "tale" content whilst the "knowledge" content gets lost. This is something I've just recently become interested in. In their un-sanitised forms Cinderalla and Rumpelstiltskin are disturbing, I hope I never meet an elf and I met a person at a conference (forunately not an elf ) who thought that Jesus was right-wing because this guy took a parable which taught a (non-monetary) principle using money to illustrate as being teaching ABOUT money.

Anyway, I'm working now. Honest. See ya later.

Thanks very much

Enjoy work: ill think about what you said...

I like the readings - thank you.

You're welcome - glad you like them.

Also glad you're vegan - very positive. Respect.

What's your job Bodhisattva?

The other thing about parables, like tales from the subconscious,(or are these the same thing?) is that each person takes something different from them.
Are Biblical parables, then responsible for religious diversions?
And if God 'wrote' the bible (Koran etc etc) are these divisions intendional ?

Hello friends,

Happy Bodhidharma day

friendlywithteeth - I'm a Teaching Fellow. Which is a posh way of saying I lecture but don't research.

Hasslefree - I think parables are sometimes necessary to make accessible to listeners truths they might otherwise not "get". Unfortunately of course many listeners still won't get them.

I suspect that "religious" divisions are for the most part pre-existing divisions to which people add a religious label in an attempt to justify their view.

But I agree with you that these divisions can become enhanced and perpetuated that way. Consider the views of the average Christian towards homosexual people.

I think that much "religious" division may be explained by "adherents" not knowing enough about their religions. For example, much of the recent "religious" conflict that we have seen has been between

(a) Christians and Muslims; and
(b) Hindus and Muslims.

But regarding (a), Jesus taught love "even" of one's enemy and Mohammed demonstrated a great respect for Christians (and when he and his followers "cleared out" a temple of religious relics and removed the paintings from the walls, he deliberately left intact a picture of Mary and Jesus).

And regarding (b), according to my understanding Sikism (I wasn't sure where the "h" goes so left it out!) came about as a kind of synthesis of Hinduism and Islam - suggesting that there cannot be serious conflicts between the teachings of those religions.

I think that the major world religions have far more that unites than divides. But then there's that important difference between a religion and those who claim to be adherents...

If God intended division then we would have to conclude that (s)he is not supremely benevolent.

But isn't, (in it's own curious way) division a 'gift' from a benevolent God/Goddess, which gives us free will. Since if mankind was not (at this point in our evolution) divided there would be no chance to experience division, and all it brings, and thus learn from it.
Since we have this 'free will' a benevolent God can only tell us that we should love one another, but not enforce that option.
If we don't listen, then we make wars, but from wars can come hope and knowledge, perhaps a lesson in that love thing being the answer to all our problems. Perhaps each war is a godly shove in the right direction ?
We can follow the divisions or we can follow a more peaceful path perhaps, that is the choice.
the divisions have to be there to give us a choice in the first place.

Therefore are not the written words of various philosophies, absolutely perfect in their ability to be misinterpreted?
Can we learn to be united if we have never experienced division ?

You are correctish. Muslims (the one I spoke to !) do believe that Jesus was a phophet in the manner of Mohammed, but not the son of God. They see Jesus as a John the Baptist figure. (since every faith must always have THEIR teacher as being the most important )
Look how well this division, multi optional faith thing works!


Just thinking

Hi Hasslefree,

"We can follow the divisions or we can follow a more peaceful path perhaps, that is the choice.
the divisions have to be there to give us a choice in the first place."

I think there's an important distinction between division (bad) and diversity (good). Only diversity need exist for choice.

For example, before the British conquered India, there is evidence that Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony despite their different philosophies. The British took steps to reinforce the differences in a way which created division. With the result that when India finally got independence, the separate countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had to be created.

"since every faith must always have THEIR teacher as being the most important"

Not ALWAYS. "The" Buddha actively tried to discourage personal attention in that way, stating that Buddhas appear in every time and in every culture. In Vietnam there are (or at least were) two 50-foot statues standing next to each other - Jesus & Buddha. But I think you're right as a general principle.

Take care,

Bod

Hi everyone

Yello.

blue!

Burnt sienna!

aquamarine!

OK you win.

Woohoo!

Bodhisattva, you have been invited to join the "God" thread in exile at the following link.

F136100?thread=309502

Please join in. You don't have to leave to original "god" thread, but try to keep the thread in exile secret. We don't want to open it to everyone until we have some good discussion by people who we select.

(We is me, Fnord Prefix, and Jane Austin)