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

darling!

Is this one of those naughty vicar jokes???

No, no need for your 'whistle' (ahem) but perhaps a hug - been feeling a bit low the past couple of days . . .

az

azahar, thank you for a temperate reply...
I am nothing like Justin - I'll take your word for that, because I don't seek him out and bait him, therefore I know almost nothing of him.
I don't identify with any 'god club', but with God. I am reminded of an extremely naive pop song that was done by a guy called Craig Scott in about 1969, about the 'forbidden love' between a Catholic girl and a Protestant boy, here in NZ.
The chorus went something like woo-ooo, we both believe in the same God in heaven/tho' we see him through differemt yes
What makes you think we *don't* identify with the people and the world around' us? In my view Christians are supposed to identify with the whole world, not just the northern or Southern hemisphere, Asia or Europe or whatever. As it says in Acts, 'God is no respecter of persons'. (Yes, it does say that!)

Member (and thanks to Matholwch for confirming this guy to be exactly who I thought him to be!)
I misread Australasia as Australia - so sue me!
As for your sniping about women scientists, coincidentally, there has been a news story recently about two women who were the subject of a search and rescue because they had gone tramping in a National Park. (This happens every week in NZ, people go tramping and get lost - regardless of sex or ethnicity - this week it was the turn of women, so please no sexist generalisations...)
The two women are scientists, and one has just completed a PhD in Quantum Gravity. (No, I don't know what exactly that is, but I guarantee you don't either.)
So, you have contempt for Christians. Quel surprise! I am therefore wasting my time, whether I argue about feminism or religion. Sigh... I should have known better, but I have learned now.

(No, I don't know what exactly that is, but I guarantee you don't either.)




Oh Adele I dont doubt that you are capable of thinking OK but you clearly didnt before posting this. Unless you want to get another "nasty" response from Hoo

Ive watched you two bicker and row, sometimes its made me laugh, but somtimes its made me despair that two people capable of so much get locked into silly arguments over the smallest detail and lose sight of the big issue.

Hoo for his part is not prepared to let you and others so dont take it too personally print as fact anything that is of questionable provenance or subjective opinion.

When you make outlandish claims and sweeping generalisations you not only leave yourself open to attack from him you weaken your argument by tainting it with inaccuraccies

AND FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY

you weaken your argument by tainting it with inaccuraccies that need not and in the interests of courtesy, should not be included.

I know you are not a total idiot but how can you possibly claim to know what Hoo can or can't understand. You are giving him more reason to hold you in contempt and making yourself look silly to everyone else. Furthermore if you really believe that you can devine all the way from NZ what some annoymous bloke in the UK can comprehend then you are deluding yourself.

In short I'd like to hear what you have to say (honestly) and if as I think you do, you would like to get your points across think about how you put them and read carefully what people say before responding. Short of that carry on as before, every court needs its .

"I misread Australasia as Australia - so sue me!"

The writ will be in the post.

"As for your sniping about women scientists,"

Sniping? I reported the incontrovertible fact that female scientists are in quite a small minority within the profession. I backed it up with not one, but three references. Is this "sniping", simply because it doesn't conform to your rather blinkered expectations of the world?

" coincidentally, there has been a news story recently about two women who were the subject of a search and rescue because they had gone tramping in a National Park. (This happens every week in NZ, people go tramping and get lost - regardless of sex or ethnicity - this week it was the turn of women, so please no sexist generalisations...)
The two women are scientists"

And this proves what? Let's see. All that can be accurately deduced from this story is:

1. There's a National Park in New Zealand in which you can get lost if you're stupid, no matter your sex or ethnicity, and a rescue service exists.
2. There are /at least/ two women scientists in New Zealand.
3. Both these women are stupid, despite their specialist qualifications.

So you've proved the existence of two female scientists in a country with a population in the millions. I hope you can see why this doesn't exactly strongly support your case.

Logic obviously isn't your strong point. I shall refrain from making any of the obvious observations which this invites.

" and one has just completed a PhD in Quantum Gravity. (No, I don't know what exactly that is, but I guarantee you don't either.)"

Wrong again, my feminist friend. (Are you getting used to being wrong yet? Is your inability to argue something personal, a feature of feminists, a feature of Christians, a feature of New Zealanders or a feature of women, do you think?)

Quantum gravity is the theory (or rather, family of theories) which are attempting to reconcile the inconsistencies between General Relativity (which works well for large scale systems such as planets, stars and galaxies) and quantum mechanics (which works on the atomic scale). General relativity posits curved spacetime as the explanation for gravitational effects. Quantum gravity is attempting to explain gravitational effects as the manifestation of elementary particle exchange, just as the other three fundamental forces in nature (electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces) are explained as the exchange of virtual photons, pions and intermediate vector bosons. Specifically, quantum gravity theory posits the existence of a specific exchange particle called the "graviton", which has zero mass and a spin constant of 2. The ultimate aim is a single theory (called the "grand unified theory") which can unite and explain, in a single consistent system, all the fundamental forces of nature. It is complicated by the fact that so far we have been unable to detect gravitons at all.

I could go on, but I doubt you've even understood that explanation, simple as it is. If you have - excellent. If not - try to find a man who can explain it to you in nice, short words, ok? Bless.

"So, you have contempt for Christians. Quel surprise!"

Um... "surprise" is feminine. You therefore should preface it with the word "quelle", also feminine, rather than the masculine "quel". Your failure to do so is rather ironic in context, don't you think?

I don't have contempt for Christians /in particular/. I'm generally misanthropic

"I should have known better, but I have learned now"

All the evidence available suggests you've learned nothing at all, but then you're not supposed to be open-minded or interested in facts, are you?

hi Adele,

<<(No, I don't know what exactly that is, but I guarantee you don't either.)>>

Oooh, I did wince for you when I read that, though I see that Member has let you off lightly. One really must be careful, as Blicky pointed out, when speaking about what another person might or might not know. And really, it is best not to do this at all. Better to ask and find out then make an unfair comment or generalization.

<>


I don't understand - this is supposed to be a *good* thing???

az

oops . . *than* make an unfair comment or generalization . . .



az

" I see that Member has let you off lightly."



Shooting fish in a barrel, az. But thanks for noticing.

<<>
I don't understand - this is supposed to be a *good* thing???>

From the context in which she said it, and the way in which she seems to understand it, I assume this is her Bible's translation of Acts 10:34.
In fact, I've just looked it up at Crosswalk.com and that is indeed how that scripture reads. But http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4381&version=kjv shows that 'respecter of persons' can also be tranlated 'one who discriminates', and the next verse indicates that this is the meaning of the word in this case. As the New World Translation says:
Acts 10:34,35 - "At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."

So yes, it is a good thing, it's just hard to understand in many translations (like a lot of scriptures). It states, basically, that God isn't racist.

hi Insight,

Nice tapdance!

So God isn't racist. He will kill off anyone, no matter what race or creed. Even His own followers. Well, this *is* a comfort, isn't it?

<>

It isn't hard to understand at all, Insight. The thing you call God is so far from a loving being that it would be hard to imagine a less loving being.

Have you not yet figured out that your precious Bible was written by men with serious personal agendas? You are not believing in God, you are believing in these men and in what they have written, saying that they were inspired by your God. How do you know they were truly inspired, Insight? How do you KNOW this? God did not write the bible. Men did. So you are believing in men.

Anyhoodle, your God has way too many nasty human characteristics for me to ever take Him seriously as a GOD. He sounds at times like a middle-aged man who hasn't grown up yet, in the sense of taking responsibility for Himself, and at other times like a five-year-old who can't get His way and so wants to destroy everything in His path. I suggest that YOUR God will grow up just as much as you do, and at that point you won't feel the need for Him any longer.

az

" in every nation the man that fears him [...] is acceptable to him."

The more I hear about this Christian deity, the less he sounds like God the Father, and the more he sounds like The Godfather.

Rule by fear is for bullies, inadequates who can command no respect by other means. And we're supposed to WANT to follow this thing?

If you remain ignorant of what fear often means in the Bible, despite surely having been told before in debate, and definitely having been told if you are Hoo, and you are unwilling to look it up in a dictionary, then I won't bother explaining it to you, since you can so easily find it out for yourself if you have any interest in the accuracy of your statements.



I've tried to think of a way to reply to you Azahar, but if I am to reason with you, you will need to give evidence for your accusations.


And what exactly would someone have to do to be a loving being? Who would be a perfectly loving being? Somebody who always does what you want? Somebody who never disagrees with you? Somebody who commends you whether you do good or bad things? What exactly does it take to be a loving being, something that you claim Jehovah has not done?


Agendas such as? I can't think of Bible writers who achieved greater power or position by their writing. Indeed, many were already in positions as high as they were likely to get. Some died because of what they wrote and taught. I would also expect a person writing a book to his own selfish ends to try to hide his own weaknesses and failings, as many national historic records do, rather than admit them.


While the full answer to this could fill many books, it would be difficult to establish a motive or even a means for many Bible writers to write the things they did, if assuming they wrote of their own accord.


Assuming I wanted him to be taken as simply being 'a' god, what would it take?

"If you remain ignorant of what fear often means in the Bible,"

I'm often intrigued by this business words IN THE BIBLE meaning something completely different to what they do in the real world.

If the Bible doesn't mean "fear", then why does it SAY "fear"?

"despite surely having been told before in debate, and definitely having been told if you are Hoo,"

What does it mean to be Hoo? Am I missing something?

"and you are unwilling to look it up in a dictionary,"

Hold on just a second. It's the dictionary definition that *I* am using. YOU are the one pointing out that in your Bible it means something else.

I could understand it if you people argued over the meaning of words which embody complex concepts, like, say, "transubstantiation". I could understand you referring me to a dictionary for that. But to suggest I need to look up a word embodying such a simple and basic human experience as "fear" shows just how shaky your position really is.

"then I won't bother explaining it to you, since you can so easily find it out for yourself if you have any interest in the accuracy of your statements."

I am comfortable with the accuracy of my statements. I am comfortable with my - and the dictionary's - definition of the word "fear".

What is at issue here, as so often happens, is basics of language. You people for some reason refuse to use language as others do. You want to argue on YOUR terms, redefine things to mean what you want them to mean. Well, I'm not playing.

You tell me that your God likes people to fear him, I shall take you at your word, and regard him as a psychotic bully. If you tell me that's not what you mean, then I'm afraid that's not /my/ fault. It is for YOU to express yourself properly. I see no reason to make any allowances for your inarticulacy. Speak to me in MY language, or admit you cannot. Do not pretend that the problem is on my end.

" I can't think of Bible writers who achieved greater power or position by their writing."

You are right, but answering the wrong question. If I may be so bold as to correct azahar - I think a more accurate statement would be:



It was not the writing of the Bible that was important in bolstering power bases and supporting agendas. It was the selection, and crucially, rejection of texts which was important. The 66 books of the Bible as it stands today is not the result of its authors - it is the work of its editors, ruthlessly suppressing other books which could have formed part of it, and magnifying the importance of sections of questionable relevance.

Respond to that, if you would, please.

Blicky, I know I should not have made that assumption about Hoo's understanding - for all I know he could be a working scientist - and so I am , but honestly, is such a comment really worthy of so much angst? I was aiming at a rather lighthearted atmosphere, *and* in a tearing hurry, given the time of year.
BTW, thanks for confirming his identity!

Hoo (I thank those who have confirmed your identity for me) I am used to your style of 'debate' by now, and the woefully predictable howls of anguished support from azahar and blicky. Sigh.
You're a very closed-minded person, and I don't feel like wasting my time shouting at someone who has blocked his ears with balls of wax, tied a bandage around his head to keep them in place, soldered a tin helmet on to his head and to cap it all off, is playing libertarian anthems to drown out any sound from the outside world that might contradict his views!
>>All the evidence available suggests you've learned nothing at all, but then you're not supposed to be open-minded or interested in facts, are you?
"Not supposed" by whom? Oh, you of course. Predictable abuse. Sad. But men do get so personal, so angsty and ironically, ad hominem. I think that taking things dreadfully personally is so characteristic of men.

Yes, because to translate from 1611 language: God is no respector of persons means, God does not play favourites.
(I should have explained that, but I thought you'd understand what it meant. I don't understand why so many people still use the King James... )

Sorry Adele I cant confirm Member is Hoo but the posts do make it look that way.

I sometimes wonder if you go through real life ignoring facts the way you do here? I dont always agree with Member or Hoo. Neither does az, yes on occasion our views do concur but not always.

The whole point about the bible is that its language in parts is so open to interpretation that it can be taken to mean almost anything. So that one verse can mean dont eat pigs pudding to one sect while meaning dont accept blood transfusions to another but both will claim they have it absolutley right and are following Gods true intentions.

I'm becoming increasingly bemused by the use of the word "Hoo" in relation to me. And please disregard howls of support - I have no need of them.

"someone who has blocked his ears with balls of wax, tied a bandage around his head to keep them in place, soldered a tin helmet on to his head"

I'm grinning, and shaking my head. I love the way you comment on only the last sentence of that post - wilfully avoiding all the ways in which I've pointed out your ignorance.

No comment to make on your incorrect use of the word "sniping"?
No comment on your faulty logic regarding the two moronic women lost in the hills?
No comment to make on the explanation of quantum gravity? (For your information, I'm a working physics TEACHER)
No comment to make on your ironically inadequate knowledge of French, with particular reference to the use of feminine pronouns?

No. Gloss over your inadequacies, errors, misunderstandings, and simple failure of intellect. Much better to simply misinterpret the word "supposed", and make a spurious point out of that.

And by the way - who's "libertarian"? I'm a dyed in the wool Tory, Ms. Leninspart, and give me lower taxes and strong immigration control or give me death - preferably someone else's. (This makes me RIGHT WING, just in case your ignorance extends to politics, which wouldn't surprise me in the least...).

And you think taking things personally is characteristic of MEN?





Oh, that's priceless.

Member,

<<If I may be so bold as to correct azahar - I think a more accurate statement would be:

>

Yes, I agree that that is more accurate.


hi Insight,

<>

It's always interesting to find out what people think of you when they post what they *assume* you might think or feel. Anyhow . . . a loving God would not destroy an entire city (including innocent children) and especially He would not destroy all of humankind (except Noah and family) just because He was 'disobeyed'.

Not that I believe those things actually happened as I believe the bible to be largely metaphorical, allegorical, with a few historical facts thrown in. So really it is the *concept* of your God that I disagree with. I think that He only exists in the minds of men who choose to believe He exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to follow such a nasty and unloving god.

(me)
> (you)

Yet you cannot offer even a couple of lines to explain this trust and belief you have in men who lived more than 2,000 years ago?

az

Calling Adele Ms Lenin-Spart is highly offensive, hurtful, degrading, and shamelessly unfair to....me.

She makes knee jerk decicions, is anti-choice and doent think white people gained any advantages by the colonisation of NZ by the British.

She's one of yours and you know it.