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

"Did you actually type that with a straight face?"

Yes. I appreciate that my unwillingness to let ignorance go uncorrected comes across as arrogant, whether I mean it to or not. I am comfortable with that, however, because I know my intention - to spread knowledge - is honourable.

I see the distinction between my own arrogance, which is my confidence in my knowledge of those areas in which I have been educated, and Insight's arrogance, which is his misplaced and self-satisfied confidence in areas in which he shows himself to be ignorant. The fact that a self-proclaimed Jehovah's Witness - one of the groups targetted by Nazi extermination in WWII - can seriously even suggest that language and its misuse have no power over the way people think beggars belief. I don't blame him for declining to debate further after that.

"I was only trying to avoid Matholwch being tarnished with what I see as an insult." But Math likes being an apostate!

Anyway if anyone wants to find out about 'The Alpha Course' they can read all about it @ http://www.banner.org.uk/ms/ms2962.html - Looking at - THE ALPHA COURSE

Alji

hi Member,

Okay, I've gone back and re-read your postings to Insight (and his to you). Your question to me was about what I thought of Insight's assertion that propaganda doesn't work.

First of all, I don't think he actually said that. He said he didn't like or agree with the Orwell quote (which I think is quite good, btw) but then admits his language is controlled by his beliefs. This says to me that he agrees propaganda *does* work. Don't you think so? And so it seems that you are agreeing on this but coming to the same conclusion in different ways and, of course, using different words.

As for Insight's supposed arrogance and patronizing manner . . . I think he is mostly being evasive. I don't really blame him because you *have* come across more than somewhat belligerent at times and have suggested a few things about Insight that are far from complimentary and that, in my opinion, are not true about him. You might want to tone that down a bit if you would like him to continue debating with you (just a thought).


hi Insight,

Speaking of language, I am also curious as to how Christians use certain words like 'merciful'. As an ex-RC I came to the conclusion long ago that the OT God is far from merciful in any sense of the word that I understand it. The same doubts apply to the term 'God's love'. You mean He 'lovingly' destroyed people just because they refused to believe in Him? The OT God that I, unfortunately, grew up with was a tyrant. Unmerciful. Showing no love or understanding whatsoever. If one didn't obey then one was damned for all eternity. As a child I had terrible nightmares about Hell because I was taught that I was wicked and a sinner and, because I was not 'perfectly loving God' I was doomed to eternal flames. What sort of crap thing is *that* to tell children???

Things got a bit better with Jesus. Which was, in fact, when Christianity was born, was it not? When God became man and the god/man that was Jesus taught compassion and love for our fellow man. But even that lovely concept got warped. That every time we sinned we opened up Jesus's wounds again. I honestly felt I could do no right, which is a terrible way to make a child feel. I was only 'acceptable' in the eyes of God and Jesus if I behaved perfectly. And how many kids do you know behave perfectly?

Anyhow, I would like to debate these points with you further, so I hope you don't disappear.


To both of you, Member and Insight, I would like to say that I think you both offer quite good points to debate about. But the points tend to get lost if you get too personal and end up fighting about silly stuff and resorting to 'yah boo sucks!' as Math pointed out earlier. You are both too intelligent to let yourselves get dragged down to that level, I think.



az

hi Alji,

That Alpha Course info totally gave me the shivers!

Perhaps you can answer my previous question about just how many different factions of Christianity actually exist?

Many of the Christians that I know personally are very open-minded and caring people. Others, Justin to give one example, are totally close-minded and won't accept the idea that any other gods exist.

Surely all gods are valid.

az

>>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 am a Christian, and I don't recognise this definition as belonging to me, or any of the Christians I know.
It would appear, Member, that you have been very unlucky in the Christians you have met.
>>Or when they say "merciful", they mean what a rational, literate adult would describe as "capricious and sadistic beyond reason".<<
I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here, but it would be good to discuss this sort of thing with you.
>>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.<<
There are many Christians who are working scientists, John Polkinghorne for one. Many people think that Christians are obliged to condemn evolution, that they believe in a 'young , and a world-wide flood.
This is not true of all of us, in fact it's true of only a few.

I myself take parts of the bible as valuable lessons and insights on how to conduct relations with other people other parts I see as being more fiction than fact.

I was christened and bought up for some time as a christian, though now I do not consider myself one.

My question for non-fundamentalist christinas is how do you decide which bits of the bible are true and which bits like worlwide floods or parting the red sea are infact fantasy or distortion?

>>the OT God is far from merciful in any sense of the word that I understand it. The same doubts apply to the term 'God's love'. <
I have long been of the opinion that the OT has only a tenuous relationship with the New, troublesome, anyway.

As a friend of mine used to say "sanctified common sense."
That may sound flippant, but it's largely true. Even as far back as the 3rd century, Origen (185-254 A.D)recognised that the Bible works on 3 levels (the literal being only one.)

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/mammal_reptiles.htm

Thomas Jefferson on the subject of the Bible (he was one of the main founders of the US government, a liberal genius, and a christian):
To his nephew he writes as follows regarding the Bible:

"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Works, Vol. ii., p. 217)."

"I am a Christian, and I don't recognise this definition as belonging to me"

Well, you wouldn't, would you? You're taught to reject that which does not conform to your idea of the world. Hence, when I point out something uncomfortable, you don't recognise it. This is no surprise at all.

"It would appear, Member, that you have been very unlucky in the Christians you have met."

Let's see - a number of vicars, a bishop, probably in excess of sixty teachers, and congregations of various churches... I've been unlucky enough to meet Christians, certainly.

">>Or when they say "merciful", they mean what a rational, literate adult would describe as "capricious and sadistic beyond reason".<<
I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here,"

I thought you were a Christian? Have you even READ the single most important book in the world, as you people define it? Have you read of the torture and killing of innocent women and children which is sanctioned, even ordered by your god? Have you read of his divinely inspired predictions as dictated to St. John the Divine that all but a very few of us are destined for an eternity of torment in a lake of fire?

I'm not sure why you don't recognise your own god. Are you sure you really are a Christian?

"Many people think that Christians are obliged to condemn evolution, that they believe in a 'young , and a world-wide flood.
This is not true of all of us, in fact it's true of only a few. "

Of course I knew this. Most Christians are therefore either
(a) sad, deluded people who don't even know what to believe or
(b) hypocrites.

It's very simple. On the one hand, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of your god, inerrant and correct in every literal detail - which some tiny, tiny minority do believe. On the other, it is a charming fairy story with a few usable bits of advice in amongst the tedious made-up rubbish.

The trouble is, the average Christian is not comfortable with either of those definitions. They know, at some level, that most of the Bible is a load of old rubbish. You yourself speak of the OT as having a "tenuous" relationship with the NT, so you know this. But you don't have the intellectual honesty or strength of character to take that thought to its logical conclusion - that the whole thing is open to interpretation, and should not be regarded with the reverence it is given.

Yes, there are Christians who are working scientists. And any Christian scientist must, if he is to be any use in his profession, leave his religion at home. At home it's OK to believe that bats are birds and hares chew the cud, that pi equals three and the earth is flat and was made in six days. At work, if you're a scientist, you keep nonsense like that to yourself. Just as it's POSSIBLE to be a vegatarian and work as a butcher, so it's possible to be a Christian and work as a scientist. You have to be a shocking unashamed hypocrite in either case, but hey, you have to make a living.

If I seem down on Christians, it's mainly because I don't think I've ever met one. And by that I mean, I have never met a single person who actually lives as Christ would have them live. Not one. Car driving, TV watching, capitalist, consuming people simply cannot be Christians with any integrity. And almost by definition, if you're posting on this board, you're no kind of Christian Christ would give the name to.

hi Member,

<>
<>

Whoops! Well, then you explain that contradiction by saying:

<>

So now *you* are saying what a Christian *should* be? How do you know how Christ would have people live?

Well, I do agree that there are so many people out there believing many very different things and all calling themselves Christians, so it does get confusing. And the crux of the problem, at least as I see it, is that all of them think *they* are right and all the other Christians are wrong. Somehow. I don't believe that anyone actually *knows* how Christ would have people (in the year 2003) live.

az

Hello, Member.
I see azahar has answered you, and although she is not a Christian, she has made some points with which I wholly agree!
>>I'm not sure why you don't recognise your own god. Are you sure you really are a Christian?<<
Of course I am sure I am a Christian. A person is a Christian if she chooses to be, and not I, nor anyone else has the right to say whether a person is or isn't. No, I don't recognise 'my' own God in your definition. Then, I don't recognise the Bible as being as important as you seem to think it should be. I don't really know what you mean about Christians and evolution, but there is no reason why Christians are or have to be biblical literalists, and unless one does take the Bible absolutely literally (something only a few people in all of its history *ever* have, or do) then there is no need to be believe in a young earth. Many atheists (or anti_Christians, and they are not necessarily the same thing), paradoxically *want* Christians to be literalists so they can ridicule us.
<<Yes, there are Christians who are working scientists. And any Christian scientist must, if he is to be any use in his profession, leave his religion at home. At home it's OK to believe that bats are birds and hares chew the cud, that pi equals three and the earth is flat and was made in six days. At work, if you're a scientist, you keep nonsense like that to yourself. Just as it's POSSIBLE to be a vegatarian and work as a butcher, so it's possible to be a Christian and work as a scientist. You have to be a shocking unashamed hypocrite in either case, but hey, you have to make a living.<<
First, 'scientist...*his* profession' What's that about? This is the 21st century. Second, what you have done is choseen some bits from the OT and pretended that we Christians have to believe them.
<<
Not one. Car driving, TV watching, capitalist, consuming people simply cannot be Christians with any integrity. And almost by definition, if you're posting on this board, you're no kind of Christian Christ would give the name to.<<
I've just realised who you are, you're the anonymous guy with pretensions to socialism, but who despises feminists and Christians. Well, I'd like to point out, I don't drive a car, I watch TV, but so what? I am not a capitalist, or a 'consuming' person at all.But you won't want to believe me on that, so I can only say, I am sorry about that.<

Adele:

"Of course I am sure I am a Christian."

You know, I can practically hear your knee jerking from here...

"A person is a Christian if she chooses to be"

I think you have missed my point here.

You might just as well say that a person is a vegetarian if she chooses to be. And this is perfectly true. And you might choose to be a vegetarian, and start your day with bacon and eggs. Does that make you less of a vegetarian? I hope you can see the point I was making now.

"and not I, nor anyone else has the right to say whether a person is or isn't."

... just as I don't have the right to tell you you're not a vegetarian as you chow down on pork chops. It's just not my business, I suppose. But if you knee-jerk react that "of course" you're a vegetarian, don't be surprised if people are a little sceptical.

"No, I don't recognise 'my' own God in your definition."

Oh good. You believe in a different god than the one in the Bible then? Strange to call yourself a Christian, then, but that's really none of my business as you point out.

"Then, I don't recognise the Bible as being as important as you seem to think it should be."

Hang on - /I/ don't think it should be important at all. It's the most popular work of fiction in the world, as far as I'm concerned. It's only self-declared Christians who claim it is the inerrant, God-breathed scripture which must be obeyed.

If you regard the Bible as relatively unimportant, then I ask again - are you sure you're a Christian?

Or perhaps I should say - are you sure you mean the same thing as everyone else in the world when you say "Christian"? Because (surprise surprise) you seem to define it differently than almost everyone I've ever heard of. Rejecting the centrality of the Bible is interesting behaviour for someone who thinks they're a Christian.

"I don't really know what you mean about Christians and evolution,"

Er... YOU brought it up. What did YOU mean by it?

"but there is no reason why Christians are or have to be biblical literalists"

Absolutely. You have the alternative - you can be a sceptic, and pick and choose which bits of the book to believe and which to reject as a load of old rubbish. Problem is, once you start - where do you stop? And when do you stop executing the people who disagree with you over which bits are true and which bits are a load of rubbish?

"and unless one does take the Bible absolutely literally (something only a few people in all of its history *ever* have, or do)"

If only that were not a pernicious lie...

"Many atheists (or anti_Christians, and they are not necessarily the same thing), paradoxically *want* Christians to be literalists so they can ridicule us."

I don't want you to be a literalist. I'm ever so glad you're not. Much better that you're a sceptic, like me, who realises that bits of the Bible are nonsensical myth. It's just a shame your education has not equipped you to evaluate all of it properly, and you persist is seeing some of it as "true".

"First, 'scientist...*his* profession' What's that about? This is the 21st century."

Ah. My apologies. I didn't realise I was dealing with a feminist. You may wish to deny the reality of male dominance of the sciences, even now. You may wish to make cheap linguistic points about gender pronouns. Most working scientists are male. Delude yourself otherwise if you like, you sound like you're quite good at it. I default to "he/him" for scientists just as I default to "she/her" for, say, nurses, for the simple reason that even now, that is reality, like it or not. Exceptions abound - but they are just that, exceptions. Live with it.

"Second, what you have done is choseen some bits from the OT and pretended that we Christians have to believe them."

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you CAN believe them and be a scientist - as long as you can leave those beliefs at home.

You can, of course, choose not to believe them. But as I said before, once you start picking and choosing - where do you stop?

"I've just realised who you are, you're the anonymous guy with pretensions to socialism,"

I don't know who you think I am but you have me confused with someone I'd probably disagree with. I have no pretensions to socialism, I'm far, far too old for that. I'm an unashamed mortgage-paying Tory, give me lower taxes and tighter immigration control and the devil take the hindmost.

"but who despises feminists and Christians."

I do not despise feminists. I think they're quite sweet, actually.

As for Christians, well, I wouldn't say "despise". Distrust, perhaps, because if they can be so dishonest with themselves I doubt I can trust them to be honest with me.

I'd say I look upon them as one would a slavering dog - they're fine as long as they're over /there/, slavering, but I'm watching like a hawk in case they lunge and I have to put a bullet through them.

"Well, I'd like to point out, I don't drive a car,"

For a feminist, it's probably just as well...

"I watch TV, but so what? I am not a capitalist, or a 'consuming' person at all."

Presumably your TV was donated to you by the charity that pays your electricity bill? Serious question.

If you live any kind of normal life in a Western democracy (and I assume from your English that you're either in the UK, the US or Australasia) then like it or not you're a consumer, baby, so get used to it. Or continue deluding yourself.

[Pictures a world in which most scientists are women, Christians don't need to believe in the Bible and televisions are like manna from heaven and don't require engagement in the system of capitalism. Shakes head and snaps out of it with a laugh.]

az:

"So now *you* are saying what a Christian *should* be? How do you know how Christ would have people live?"

Er... I read the Bible? Was that a trick question? If you just read what Jesus himself actually said, a fairly simple picture emerges of how he wants people to live - and it's not a picture which depends much on when you live. The emphasis is on simplicity and care for others - pretty much the opposite of modern capitalist consumerism.

"I don't believe that anyone actually *knows* how Christ would have people (in the year 2003) live."

Oh, nor do I, and I don't claim to. But Jesus made his points pretty clear, and they're not dependent on time or society. Love God. Love your neighbour AS YOURSELF. Do you know ANYONE, even one person who really lives that commandment? I don't.

Hi Memberhoo

As so often happens I end up agreeing with you. What the Christ (we must remember that it is a title, not a name) wanted is irrelevant to Christianity and has been since the second century CE.

Modern Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus the man, and everything to do with those two old mysoginists Paul and Peter.

I have been reviewing the background material to the Alpha Course over the last two weeks since this thread started (I have a very helpful local Evangelical Church). If you actually analyse what it is trying to do it is pretty grim stuff. Whole sections of it could have been written by Josef Goebbels for Der Hitler Jugend. Just replace 'Fuhrer' with 'Jesus'.

It is, at its heart, cynical, insidious and pernicious. It is also very well written, delivered professionally by well-trained and committed men and women.

Recent interviews with some of the people behind it reveal an agenda that is aimed at creating fundamentalist Christian states across the western world in order to counter the 'evils' of Islam.

What is particularly worrying is that the leadership of many of these western nations is full of evangelicals and men who approve of the aims of the Alpha Course.

We live in interesting times.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Member, I don't know who you are, but I suspect I have encountered you before, under one or another different name.
I really don't know what I could possibly say that wouldn't have you on the attack like a snarling Rottweiler. Frankly, God has given us each only so many heartbeats, and I've spent far too many on other threads arguing with you. (Before you get all het up, that particular saying is a very clever quote from a book reviewer I read one, I have borrowed and adapted it from her.)
The majority of the Christians I have met in 30 odd years, are as I describe, and not as you do. You have a picture of Christians that you wish we would adhere to, so that you can get a really good hate on, just as you wish all feminists, women, 'capitalists' etc, would conform to your prejudices.
Funnily enough, yes, my TV *was* donated to me (by a family member...) and as our local electricity board gave all its customers a large dividend in the form of a credit back in September, although the telly came from a different source, both *are* 'donated'!
I have already told you how I see things, and how the majority of Christians in the 21st century likewise see them. If you don't accept that, there's nothing else I can say, except to refer you to Origen (at the top of this thread, I made the same reference to Blickybadger and for the same reason, in respect of bible literalism.) He didn't snarl in response, why should you?
As for your point about women scientists, they're like Christian liberals - everywhere, but you'd prefer not to see them...
I'm in none of the places you mention (USA? Wash your mouth out!)
I am in New Zealand, as (if you *are* the other guy, you well know.)

hi Adele,

You said to Member: <>

Possibly a bit of a generalization there, considering how many different sorts of Christians exist. So I don't see how you can speak for the majority of Christians in the 21st century.

I'm personally confused as to what *exactly* a Christian is. You are nothing like Justin, yet you both call yourselves Christian. I think it would save a lot of trouble and strife (and wars, etc) if everybody stopped labelling themselves and identifying with their own personal 'god clubs' and learned to identify more with the people and the world around them.


az

Adele:

I said: "I assume from your English that you're either in the UK, the US or Australasia"

You said: "I'm in none of the places you mention...I am in New Zealand"

So New Zealand isn't in Australasia. See what I mean about Christians defining words differently from everyone else? Perfect example.

"that particular saying is a very clever quote from a book reviewer I read one, I have borrowed and adapted it from her"

Clever and original thoughts are precious, so you should steal as many of other people's as possible.

"You have a picture of Christians that you wish we would adhere to, so that you can get a really good hate on,"

Not at all. I wouldn't be so lazy as to generalise Christians in that way - there are over a billion people who call themselves Christian, after all. They have little in common beside the self-bestowed name. And that very fact unites them in my contempt.

"just as you wish all feminists, women, 'capitalists' etc, would conform to your prejudices."

I don't think I even KNOW anyone who is so backward they still subscribe to the outdated tenets of feminism. Even Germaine Greer's moved on from there - do try to keep up. I have no prejudices regarding women. And 'capitalists'? I'm one of those myself. Are you paying attention? I thought I'd mentioned that.

It's heartening and not entirely surprising to hear that you don't pay for your TV or electricity. I suspected you might be one of society's non-productive parasites. Thanks for confirming it.

"As for your point about women scientists, they're ... everywhere, but you'd prefer not to see them..."

Poor numbers of women in chemistry.
http://www.coker.edu/chemistry/women_in_chemistry.htm
Poor numbers of women in physics.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/women/women.htm
Poor numbers of women in science and engineering in general:
http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics/Data_from_Women.html

In particular, from the latter: "Women represent 22 percent of the science and engineering labor force, and within science and engineering women are more strongly represented in some fields than in others. More than half of sociologists and psychologists are women, compared with only 9 percent of physicists and 8 percent of engineers."

I would prefer to see more women scientists and engineers - they're far more pleasing to the eye than their male counterparts. But at the moment, the FACTS are on my side - they're a tiny minority, and the minority is smaller the higher up the hierarchy you go. Sure, 22 percent of the workforce - but you can bet most of those 22 per cent are at the bottom of the ladder, not the top. Sorry, but I prefer to live in the real world.

<>

Time out!

Low ad hominem blow! Adds nothing to the discussion and does nothing for Member's character as perceived by the rest of us.

Adele is advised to totally ignore this scurrilous comment and to carry on defending her position as she has been doing, without stooping to personal insults.

az the ref

Would you like to borrow my az?