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

If you are seeking to find the God portrayed in the Bible, the Alpha Course is not recommended, as most instances of it don't use the Bible in their teaching.
I advise that you only accept religious teaching if the basis for it is being shown to you from the Bible.

Email me at [email protected] if you want to know what is taught in the Bible.

why is it not biblical then?can you give me an instance?i just want to know more about it.

I'm not saying it's all unbiblical - just that the Bible is usually not referred to, so you don't know whether unbiblical teachings are being included, like the teaching of torment in a fiery hell for example.

right, think i understand.so what part of that isnt biblical then?just thinking now if what i know is biblical or picked up elsewhere lol.its strange,ive been going to church since three and yet i still get confused.

Ruth,

I should warn you that Insight is not a Christian, but a JW, hence his adherence to odd doctrines.

J.

Justin,

Despite your self-delusion you are no judge as to who is Christian or not. Do not judge, let ye be judged.

From what I have seen of Insight he is far closer to the christian ethic in his practice than you will ever be. For one he doesn't have the arrogance to say that he is right and everyone else a fool.
********************************************************************

Minnie,

I'd listen to Insight if I were you. That may sound strange coming from a druid and confirmed apostate, but from my experience of him I trust David not to lie or lead you down an unsafe road.

If you want further christian advice look up Jordan or Della.

Blessings on your journey,
Matholwch /|\.

Basically, the whole teaching of hellfire is based, not on the Bible, but on religions that preceeded Christianity. There is mention of a lake of fire in the book of Revelation, but since figurative characters such as death and Hades are hurled there it cannot be literal.
Jesus spoke of Gehenna, which was translated 'Hell' in many translations. But Gehenna was not an afterlife, it was a literal place outside Jerusalem where dead bodies were thrown if deemed unworthy of burial. Since only the dead were thrown into Gehenna, nobody suffered there.
Really, is it reasonable to believe that God, who loves us so much that he gave us his son, would create a hell just to make people suffer? And is it in line with Ecclesiastes 9:5, which says, "For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing" (New King James Version)? Justin speaks of people saying things and wishing things and thinking things in hell, but Ecclesiastes 9:10 says, "there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." And Matthew 10:28 (still from the NKJV, by the way) reads, "But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Since both a persons body and soul get destroyed in hell, what is there left of him to experience any pain?

For more information on hell, you can visit:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/7/15/article_02.htm
There's a lot more information on many subjects on that website, and it gives the relevant Bible scriptures in brackets so you can see where the information is coming from, and check it in your own Bible.




You say that as if there's a difference! If I'm not a Christian, why am I directing anyone to the Bible?


I don't think you're the same as an apostate Math. An apostate would claim to be christian.
Besides, an apostate is not just someone who has become disillusioned with his former spirituality, but more than that, out of spite he sets out to destroy other peoples as well. Even when you are speaking against Christianity, you don't give the impression of having spiteful feelings toward it and it's followers, as do, for example, the myriads of apostate websites.

Hi Insight

But Justin called me an apostate, so it must be true!

You are right though I hold no personal spite or hatred for the followers of Jesus. I would rather that a person has experience of the divine spirit of being, in whatever form that may be, than to be adrift in life, living with no purpose but to breed and die.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

"an apostate is not just someone who has become disillusioned with his former spirituality, but more than that, out of spite he sets out to destroy other peoples as well"

Insight, where did you get this from?

My dictionary gives the definition as "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause."


Alji

Isn't applying arbitrary private definitions to words a common Christian activity? Insight wouldn't be a proper Christian if he didn't try to redefine normal English words to mean things completely different to what they actually mean to normal people.

I mean, I HEAR Christians say things, and I see them write things - things like "mercy", "forgiveness" and now "apostate". But I know from the context that those words, when *they* use them, don't mean what other people think they mean.

Like when a Christian says "fact", they don't mean something objectively verifiable. They mean something some old guy in a dress told them once, or something that is written down in one specific book and corroborated nowhere else.

Or when they say "merciful", they mean what a rational, literate adult would describe as "capricious and sadistic beyond reason".

Or the word "science". This means something quite specific to people whose job it is to know - teachers, say. This definition, the proper definition, describes how one seeks to model the universe ever more accurately by observation, hypotheses, test, and theory, subject to peer review and modification in the light of new data.

To a Christian, "science" means making up a story to fit something you read in a book, looking for corroboration, suppressing evidence which disagrees with your idea and distorting what you can find so that it fits better - so pretty much the antithesis of what the word means to normal people.

George Orwell made the point that one can effectively control the minds of others if one can control the language in which they express their thoughts.

Christianspeak, like Newspeak, seeks to make deviation from their path impossible, by artificially narrowing the Christian's range of thought to acceptable areas. It further works by encouraging adherents to reject the correct definitions as used by everyone else in favour of those in agreement with doctrine.

Perhaps Insight will have the insight to recognise this, and will realise the real meanings of the words he uses, rather than the approved, doctrinally "correct" ones. Perhaps he will have the insight to recognise that he is the subject of an attempt to control his very thoughts by affecting his language. Perhaps he has the insight to reject this artificial and externally imposed limitation on his powers of thought. If so, he too may one day be an apostate.

We can but hope.

Well, if you want me to believe that everyone who disagrees with me is an evil apostate, then ... well, I'd be Justin.

My dictionary (a cheap one, I admit) says an apostate is someone who betrays his faith, not just someone who has left it. Judas Iscariot, for example.

But as Jordan, who is currently beside me, says, 'Why does anyone care?'. I was only trying to avoid Matholwch being tarnished with what I see as an insult.

Being a part of a society, profession, social group, etc. usually involves becoming familiar with new vocabulary specific to that group. On H2G2 for example, a muse is a part of a certain group (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A498936), whereas in the outside world, a muse is 'a state of meditation'.
Private definitions of words are hardly specific to Christianity.


Then it must be true.


Interesting, then, that I have discussed so many other areas of thought for so long on H2G2.


Obviously, 'everyone else' has identical knowledge of the meaning of every word.


And, convenient meanings of single words then being replaced by lengthy phrases, any sentence concerning religion can be twice as long.


I now see that my language differing from yours makes it wrong, and it must therefore be a method of mind control. Your logic is most clear to me now.


Yes! From now on, when I am advised not to speak to apostates, I shall not take it as meaning that I should avoid speaking to bitter, resentful people who wish me to lose my beliefs, not because they believe they can help me, but because they don't like my beliefs. No, now I shall follow your definition, and take that suggestion as meaning that I should avoid speaking to anyone who has at any time changed their views on a subject! Hallelu! Now I will never speak to anyone again, and so my mind and my thoughts are now free, thanks to your revelation!

Oh, by the way, I'm being sarcastic.
Assuming you use the same definition of sarcasm as me, that is.
I take it to mean 'saying roughly the opposite of the thoughts intended to be conveyed', in case you were wondering.
I'm probably wrong, because you can think of an alternative definition.
If I am, it's obviously because some external agent is controlling my mind.
What other explanation could there be?

(N.B. There didn't seem any point discussing your remarkably objective (There it is again!) opinions of how Christians define certain words, since it clearly wouldn't be my own thoughts I was expressing anyway.)

"On H2G2 for example, a muse is a part of a certain group (A498936), whereas in the outside world, a muse is 'a state of meditation'."

A serious question: is English your first language? I ask this because I've just asked four people I know what a muse is, and they all gave more or less the same answer (without looking in a dictionary). And it wasn't "a state of meditation".

*TO* muse (verb) could be said to be something like "to ponder, to meditate on". But that's not what you said.

*A* muse (noun - i.e. what you said above (you DO understand the difference between a noun and a verb, right? Oh.)) is a person, or other entity, which inspires creative activity. For instance, Pattie Boyd could be said to have been a muse to Eric Clapton and George Harrison - they both wrote songs about her. (Bloody good ones too...)

If you'd bothered to look, you'd see that this is the reason h2g2 Muses are called that. Try searching A420661 for occurrences of the letters "inspir*". It's really kind of the WHOLE POINT.

I find your choice of example... amusing.

"Private definitions of words are hardly specific to Christianity."

No. But rejection of the commonly accepted definition in favour of the private one seems to be. Most users of jargon seem perfectly capable of using the "normal" definitions of words when appropriate.

For instance, users of computers perfectly well understand that the word "program" means "sequence of instructions and procedures". They also perfectly well understand that it can also mean other things, and they don't try to pretend that it doesn't.

Christians, on the other hand, wilfully misuse language. Example: "I don't believe in evolution - it's just a theory." If they have had any useful education, they know the difference between the COMMON use of the word theory (i.e. a guess, a speculation - "my theory is the butler did it") and the JARGON use (i.e. an intricately constructed model based on many empirical observations - e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation). They wilfully pretend that the JARGON use of it is equivalent to the common use. That, in my experience, is unique to Christians, or perhaps just to religions in general.

"
Then it must be true."

Are you suggesting it isn't? Or are you just being childishly sarcastic because you don't have a good answer?

I used Orwell as an example. I might just as well have used Goebbels. Perhaps you would have been a little less quick to rubbish the suggestion in that case. Perhaps not. I have no idea whether your knowledge of history is as bad as your English.

"
Interesting, then, that I have discussed so many other areas of thought for so long on H2G2."

If you stopped to think for even a moment you could perhaps reflect that linguistic control over what you can think would operate like your blind spot. You wouldn't know what you don't know. Your ability to discuss other subjects is worse than irrelevant. It is your inability to understand certain limited areas which is important - and because of your externally imposed limitation, you can't even see it. It's depressing to see you've been taken in so completely. Most people at least know ABOUT their blind spot, even if they can't actually see anything in it.

"Obviously, 'everyone else' has identical knowledge of the meaning of every word."

This is what we have dictionaries for, isn't it? So that we agree on the meanings of words? See also above note on the rational use of jargon. Example: 'most people' agree "bad" means the opposite of "good". Some small subsection of young people, however, use it to mean "very good". But even that small subculture are not so moronic and disconnected from reality that they think that's all it means. They understand that when an adult says "your car is bad", they mean it is rubbish. They recognise, albeit unconsciously, that they are using jargon. And they even take the trouble, no matter how stupid they are, to either use "normal" language when talking to someone outside their circle, or to explain their language to an outsider. This is instinctive - "no Dad, 'bad' means good, ok?".

Strangely, Christians seem not to have this instinct to explain. They use words like "mercy" and expect everyone to know it doesn't mean the same thing it means to everyone else. Weird.


I now see that my language differing from yours makes it wrong, and it must therefore be a method of mind control. Your logic is most clear to me now.

Ah, more sarcasm. Nice kneejerk reaction. Heaven forbid you should engage your brain and think about what I've said.

Your language differing from mine does not make it wrong. It makes it jargon. I expect only that you have the insight to recognise that. So far you seem not to.

"I should avoid speaking to bitter, resentful people who wish me to lose my beliefs, not because they believe they can help me, but because they don't like my beliefs."

Do they mean me? They surely do.

I don't wish you to lose your beliefs. I wish you to question them, in language not controlled by them.

If you truly question them, and don't them get away with pat answers, and still accept them - well, you deserve them. Who am I to expect you to lose them?

"Assuming you use the same definition of sarcasm as me, that is.
I take it to mean 'saying roughly the opposite of the thoughts intended to be conveyed', in case you were wondering."

Most people I know (and most dictionaries) would include some mention of the intention for comic effect, but I do understand your grasp of English is something less than adequate. What else should one expect of a computer programmer, I suppose...

My language was irrelevant to the point, since references were used instead of my own opinion. That's why it was in quotes. Mock dictionaries if you must, but don't claim that what they say is my fault if you disagree.

<*A* muse (noun - i.e. what you said above (you DO understand the difference between a noun and a verb, right? Oh.)) is a person, or other entity, which inspires creative activity.>
Obviously I know the difference, since the definition I gave from the dictionary, 'a state of meditation', could hardly be a verb - if it had been a verb it would have read, 'to meditate', or something similar.


Partly suggesting it isn't. Partly hinting at the fact that, if I quoted something from a book while supplying no logical basis for it, I'd be brainwashed, but if you do it, then it's alright.


Sarcasm for me is a reaction to feeling tired of trying to comprehend how someone believes an absurd hypothesis, when they have given no logical argument for it.
If you want a logical counter-argument, you'll have to give me a logical argument, instead of a pile of sweeping assumptions, paranoia, exaggerated generalities, quotes substituted for common sense, and bizarre conclusions. If a logical counter-argument appears to be futile, or even impossible in the event that there can be found no attempted logic with which to argue, then there's a good chance you'll get sarcasm as a reply instead.
And really - I know I've considered my beliefs logically, often and in great detail, and here you are, like a great many other people, telling me that my mind is simply being controlled. How much credence can I reasonably be expected to give to your claims?


Then what is my language to be controlled by? Of course my langauge is controlled by my beliefs, as your langauge is controlled by your beliefs. It can't logically be controlled by anything else. My beliefs include, after all, what I believe words to mean.
The point is, it is our language that is controlled by our beliefs - not the other way round.


You surprise me. I have suspected for a while that you're actually Hoovooloo, and indeed still do. But while giving forth countless baseless criticisms on my science, he complimented me on my English, stating that he 'couldn't fault it.' But then, I suppose I shouldn't expect him to baulk at contradicting himself if it meant he could make even more baseless criticisms, that activity being after all what he loves above all else. You, somewhat suspiciously, also seem most adept and shameless in that field, which it is what the conversation now seems to be coming to. As stated in a previous forum, that's my cue to start ignoring you, as in retrospect I think I should have done to Hoovooloo. Besides, I've wasted too much time with you already. I'm here to inform to a hopefully god-seeking person of what the Bible teaches, not to discuss the paranoid concept of the possibility of linguistic mind-control.

Hi Insight and Member

Boys, boys...why are you too wasting your time on this petty argument?

If you are going to argue perhaps you should find something important to debate rather than "you are sarcastic...no I'm not, you are...yah boo sucks!".

Although you started in debate you've both moved into more personal territory that is quite inappropriate to both this forum and besmirches the honour and regard I have always held you both in.

Get over it and move back to the point in question, please?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Does anyone know just how many different factions of Christianity exist? And how many of them believe they are the 'one and true' religion with access to the 'only' God Almighty?

The United Church of Canada, for example, has had female and gay ministers for about twenty years and have recently accepted that gay people can be married in church. And they are Christian. Though no doubt Justin would disagree. Would you disagree too, Insight?

Is there any such thing as a 'true' Christian? In the sense of them being the 'one and only'. If so, what are the rules?

az

Insight:

You're going to *start* ignoring me? Looked to me like you'd already started. Things you've ignored from my last post:

1. Your error in the definition of "muse".
2. The difference between jargon and wilful misuse of language.
3. The fact the quoting Orwell was the most shorthand way of referring to the power of propaganda, and that I could just as well have referred to Goebbels (or George W. Bush for that matter). Your hint of a suggestion that propaganda doesn't work is merely laughable.
4. The concept of your blind spot.(I should not be surprised you ignored this, I suppose...)

To your post now:

Your language is highly relevant to the point. You seem quite proud of how good you are at English - and yet you're not. You seem to think that the h2g2 defintion of "muse" and the most common usage in the outside world are different. This is a forgivable mistake for a non-native English speaker. I just didn't want to mock you're English if your native language was Dutch or something. It's not - fine.

"Sarcasm for me is a reaction to feeling tired of trying to comprehend how someone believes an absurd hypothesis, when they have given no logical argument for it."

What "absurd hypothesis"?

" a pile of sweeping assumptions, paranoia, exaggerated generalities, quotes substituted for common sense, and bizarre conclusions"

I'm not sure to what "sweeping assumptions" you refer. I am not paranoid (most Christians, especially Justin, much more closely fit the paranoiac profile - they believe there's an entity watching them all the time for a kickoff, how paranoid is that?).

Quotes substituted for common sense? Is this about quoting Orwell again? Quotes can be a useful shorthand, and one of the reasons they become so is because they are true, or tell us something useful. Here's another one for you: "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH".

You may wish to dismiss that as mere fiction, something no more significant than, say, "One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." Many people do. This situation reminds me of the racists who used to love Alf Garnett, never realising that he was a grotesque parody of them, ridiculing them.

Propaganda works. You may wish to close your eyes and pretend it doesn't, but if you do that you're no better than the "ordinary Germans" who really, honestly had no idea that their government had practically automated extermination, of Jews, of homosexuals, of gypsies and of, among others, people like you - JWs. I can tell you all about the history of it if you like, and you would not be able so easily to dismiss it as you seem willing to dismiss the points Orwell was making. Or perhaps you would. Perhaps you don't care, or think it doesn't apply to you. If you'd lived sixty years ago in Germany, I suspect you would have thought differently.

And what "bizarre conclusions"?

"Of course my langauge is controlled by my beliefs, as your langauge is controlled by your beliefs."

What beliefs? I don't hold any faith, in anything. I don't use odd definitions of words because of what I think about the Bible, for instance. My language is controlled, if at all, by my knowledge of it - and that comes from a multitude of cultural influences, television, film, books, all filtered through my education. There is nothing external to me controlling it directly, whereas you allow your use of language to be controlled and defined by your beliefs - which are part of a framework defined outside yourself. This is a key difference between us.

" he complimented me on my English, stating that he 'couldn't fault it.' "

He obviously wasn't paying attention. You use English like someone who learned it quite well from a book, but never actually met anyone they could practice it on. This is why I asked what your first language is - you sound like an old colleague of mine, a Dutch guy who learned English in his twenties. He spoke excellent, unaccented, even idiomatic English - but he said odd things, used words in odd ways, that gave him away as a foreigner. Not often - but his words betrayed his different cultural background. I thought I detected that in you.


The concept of linguistic mind control is not "paranoid" at all. It would gladden the heart of any advertising executive to hear that someone who considers themself intelligent thinks that.

It's simple reality. Try watching a performance by Derren Brown, or a stage psychic. Read a book on Neurolinguistic Programming. Research the psychology of advertising. Get a copy of "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" - if you can.

Language DOES control your mind. If you believe it doesn't, you lack some basic knowledge about how your mind works. But that much was obvious.

*sigh*

You make some interesting points, Member. And so does Insight. But why are the personal insults necessary?

Surely Justin insults everyone quite enough. We don't need to behave that way ourselves. Do we?

az

Personal insults... ?

Insight displays breathtaking arrogance. This would be merely irritating if what he was saying was right. But when practically every post shows him to be naive, wilfully short of knowledge about subjects he claims expertise on, and patronising towards those who would remedy his ignorance, I find it difficult to remain civil.

Just to pick a single example: what do YOU, azahar, think of his assertion above that propaganda doesn't work - and his patronising attitude when I suggested that it does?

hi Member,

<>

Did you actually type that with a straight face?

Okay, shall re-read the points made about propaganda not working, etc, but as for Insight's 'patronizing attitude', don't you think that's a bit rich coming from you? I think Math is right. Both you and Insight get too caught up in personal stuff and then forget the subject matter almost entirely.

later,
az