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

<>

In fact, both words are correct for meaning one's butt, backside, etc. American grammar and vocabulary is not 'incorrect' English, it is just not British English.




az

"Why should you bother looking after kids if you can't be sure they are yours? (a Male Perspective)"

In theory all the children in your harem *should* be yours, and if they're not you're not doing your alpha male job properly.

"I should get pregnant by as many men as I can so that they will ALL think my children may be theirs and want to look after them. (a Female Perspective)"

Absolutely not. You should get pregnant by the most powerful, influential and genetically suitable mate FIRST. Then by his near competitors, but get him to think they're all his so that HE, who is best equipped, can look after them.

"From a female's pov it makes sense to keep your man true, as if not they may go off and impregnate/protect someone else,"

From an evolutionary perspective this matters not at all. And indeed one might say that as long as your man is still providing for your children, he should be free to (try to) impregnate whomever he likes - because what have you to lose?

"from a Male's it makes sense to stop your woman going off having sex with another man"

Yes, standard alpha male behaviour. You try to make your each of your women only has you. But you also try to have as many women in that position as possible.

"On the polytheisic thing I think we shall have to agree to disagree"

Fair enough.

"Also BTW is this your personal opinion or have you a source?)"

Source? Um... the Bible?

"Judaism - piffling irrelevance?"

Yes.

"I think many people would disagree with you, particularly those Jews who hold powerful positions[...]"

Ah, hang on. *Judaism* I said was a piffling irrelevance. Jews themselves, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of gefilte fish.

That individual Jews have a cultural, financial and political influence over the whole world out of all proportion to their numbers in the population is undeniable. They are anything but irrelevant as a RACE. But as a *religion* they're small fry, not, I think, worth wasting time talking about.

"My definition of Christianity is NOT that you believe some of the bible is true... "Chris·tian
adj.
[...]
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus"

Hmm... according to THAT definition, I'm a Christian. I do live according to SOME of the teachings of Jesus. Not all of them, obviously, but then name me one Christian that does. Just some. I don't do so because I believe anything in particular, I just live that way - which according to that definition is enough.

Hail brother/sister in Christ!

"The first of which I believe to be relevant to this discussion, as to which of his teachings you decide to follow, well, that is up to individual choice."

Great! My choice is - hardly any, just the ones that don't interfere with my lifestyle.

You have correctly spotted that I am employing the ass/arse double entendre for comic effect. Ay theng yo.

SoRB

There are arguments both ways as to which is the REAL/CORRECT English. BUT as Britain contains England and England is where English originates... (well, so starts my argument).

There are also arguments that say that American spelling (at least) is closer to the original English than British spelling is.

That aside, in this particular case the Americanisation (ASS) IS derived from the British ARSE (which itself comes from either germanic, greek, or hittite (!)) see below.

"ass (1)
beast of burden, O.E. assa (Old Northumbrian assal, assald), prob. from O.Celt. *as(s)in "donkey," which (with Ger. esel, Goth. asilus, Lith. asilas, O.C.S. osl) is ultimately from L. asinus, probably of Middle Eastern origin (cf. Sumerian ansu). Since ancient Gk. times, in fables and parables, the animal typifies clumsiness and stupidity (hence asshead, 1550, etc.). To make an ass of oneself is from 1590. Asses' Bridge (c.1780), from L. Pons Asinorum, is fifth proposition of first book of Euclid's "Elements."
ass (2)
slang for "backside," first attested 1860 in nautical slang, in popular use from 1930; from Amer.Eng. pronunciation of arse (q.v.). The loss of -r- before -s- attested in several other words (e.g. burst/bust, curse/cuss, horse/hoss, barse/bass). Indirect evidence of the change from arse to ass can be traced to 1785 (in euphemistic avoidance of ass "donkey" by polite speakers) and perhaps to Shakespeare, if Nick Bottom transformed into a donkey in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1594) is the word-play some think it is. Meaning "woman regarded as a sexual object" is from 1942. Asshole first attested 1935."

"arse
"buttocks," O.E. ærs "tail, rump," from P.Gmc. *arsoz (cf. O.N. ars, M.Du. ærs, Ger. Arsch "buttock"), cognate with Gk. orros "tail, rump, base of the spine," Hittite arrash, Arm. or "buttock," O.Ir. err "tail." Arse-hole first attested c.1400 as arce-hoole. Arsy-versy "backside foremost" first attested 1539."


From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ASS&searchmode=none

OK...

"In theory all the children in your harem *should* be yours, and if they're not you're not doing your alpha male job properly." - but this is only true if you ARE the alpha male, and as the majority of us aren't, and the majority of Men (even way back when) didn't have a Harem - yes the ALPHA males did I guess...

Again I think we shall have to agree to disagree about the monogamy/polygamy/adultery thing - I can see merit in your arguments, I just happen to think there is more to it than that.

Source - I was wondering if the arguments you are suggesting are entirely your own (i.e. your own interpretations of the bible) or if you have any other sources to back them up (as I have done with the definitions I have posted).

Judaism/Jews - you don't get one without the other.

<> (SoRB)

I would venture to say that most of us in western civilized countries also live by some of the teachings of Jesus. Except you can also find similar teachings in other religions.

So, if I live by the Golden Rule (and I mostly do) and keep most of the Ten Commandments (and no, I don't covet my neighbour's arse ), does this make me a Christian?

An argument I've often had with Della - *what exactly* is a Christian? So many just seem to cherry pick the bits of the bible they like, join churches that 'fit in' with their own personal opinions . . .

I also choose my friends in a similar manner. The ones with whom I share common beliefs and interests end up being my friends. Others might be very interesting acquaintances, though I might feel less 'close' to them.

So it seems to me that most Christian churches are more like social clubs - you get to hang out with people who are just like you, who share similar beliefs.

What does this have to do with the One God Almighty?

I guess my point is that if you are going to have a Holy Bible, then you should believe in all that it says. Not then say - oh, this bit is meant to be allegorical. Like - according to who? Or else - well, I don't like that particular bit so I'm going to ignore it.

Where do Christians get off *editing* the Holy Bible to suit their own personal perspectives? Who do they think they are? God on the Throne? I mean, I can do this, but I don't pretend to be a Christian.

Re: the language thing. The word 'ass' in North American English means both the animal and one's backside. There is no such thing as 'REAL CORRECT' English. It's all English. Live with it.

az
(English teacher)

By 'some teachings' I presume you mean the ones that come from just being fairly honest decent? i.e. the pretty much common sense ones: be nice to people and don't scr*w them over. The ones that you do not need the Son Of God to tell you if you have got half a brain.

It is the other teachings of Jesus/God that I have a problem with mainly because they are bigotted and intolerant and do not fit into my lifes view of treating everyone equally and tolerantly as long they are not adversely affecting me or society in general i.e. homosexuals are perversions in the eyes of God, abortion is evil and so are the people who do it etc.

So, I would rather live my life by common sense and decency which surprisingly has changed little over the past 2000 years as that is what the people who wrote the NT thought how people should behave.

As I am not a bigot and, generally, tolerant, I would certainly not take any heed of the more bigotted and intolerant 'teachings' of the Bible as that just alienates and oppresses people who are quite happy doing what they want to with out harming others in any way.

So I would venture that most of us in Western civilised countries live our lives by un-bigotted common sense and decency - not the teachings of Jesus or God.

OK, you could argue with "Western Civilized" and with unbigotted - but I'm not going to as I generally agree with them, however others wouldn't (e.g. those who aren't "Western civilised" would probably consider us bigotted towards them - which is one reason (imho) that had lead to al qaida & other terrorists targetting the western civilisation...)

OK, basically to be considered a Christian you need to
1) believe that Jesus existed
2) believe he was the son of GOD
3) Believe he rose from the dead

Personally I would say that the first two are the minimum requirements for being a Christian. You may still follow the teachings of christ or whoever, if you don't believe the above then you can't be a christian.

(BTW - I am not saying whether or not I believe any of the above).

Actually there is a guy called SOLON from Ancient greece whose writings most people seem to "live by" especially Americans (look it up).

where in the bible (O or NT) does it specifically say that homosexuality is evil? I've heard people say it, and try and find it, but noone has pointed it out to me yet. There are those who do believe that the bible says this, but then there are those who believed the world would end in 1666 or 2000 or 2001 - and we're still here!

Ok.. OK.. Maybe I've not done all the research into this, I'm no theologian (or Homosexual), but a quick google comes up with all sorts of wacko stuff about this. In my opinion there is little, if anything that EXPLICITLY forbids homosexuality - some passages call it an error (Paul in Corinthians for instance). It seems to be another interpretation that people have placed upon certain passages in the bible to bolster their own world view - much as some Moslem's have taken the (generally very peaceable) teachings of their prophet to mean they must kill all non-believers...

Which teachings of Jesus are bigotted/intolerant? And don't point to him saying that the OT laws should still be valid, I'm pretty sure that the verse you are talking about was not said as a "teaching" but as a speech in a synagogue where he had to placate the "elders", and show them he didn't want to overthrow Judaism - although why he would need to do this is beyond me (maybe he wanted to avoid unnecessary bloodshed). I may be wrong about this, as I'm working from memory, and haven't the time to look it up properly.

Ass/Arse - you don't say ? And how many American's realise this?

Unfortunately you are right, unlike German, there is no "high" english which can realistically claim to be the "real thing", which leads to all sorts of misunderstandings (of which arse/ass is probably the most trivial!)

<>

US Americans use the word ass to mean both an animal similar to a donkey and also one's bottom. They don't use the word arse.

Being Canadian I've heard both terms for bottom as 'arse' or 'ass' - but only 'ass' is used for the animal, of course. I use whichever one suits, depending on who I'm talking to.


az

"where in the bible (O or NT) does it specifically say that homosexuality is evil?"

It doesn't say "evil" as such...

Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13, have it as "an abomination" requiring the death penalty.

Also 1 Timothy 1:10, if you'd like something from the New Testament.

SoRB

Timothy describes practising homosexuals (presumably they haven't got it right yet) as part of the "lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful", which is company I'm happy in any day of the week.

Fair enough - so not in the teachings of Jesus then?

(which is what Christians SHOULD be concerned about).

An example once again, because the OT says something bigotted and nasty that Christians are embarrassed about, the OT is disavowed.

Until it says aomething to back up one of your arguments I presume.

But of course *in your opinion* the OT can be ignored.

Argon0, the problem is that SoRB doesn't want to hear you any more than he wants to hear me, he'll rant, rave and misquote you until you become as sick of it as I am! I used to find him very scary indeed, now he just makes me impatient, and occasionally angry - as liars always do...

There comes a time when after arguing until you're in the face, you'll realise that he won't hear your arguments. but true...

<>

True, but so what? You despise the Bible, why should you care?

NB - the NT reference does not require the death penalty, but you knew that of course.

Re post 33...

<< he'll rant, rave and misquote you until you become as sick of it as I am!>>

<< he just makes me impatient, and occasionally angry - as liars always do... >>

John 8:7 He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm

Now, I know you don't actually accuse SoRB of lying, but I suspect that most here will, reading between the lines, assume that was your intention

For one who claims to not understand irony, you have certainly provided an incredible example!

Who is (in)famous throughout hootoo not only as a ranter and raver, given to INTENTIONAL misquotes in a feeble attempt to deflect/ignore valid questioning and/or constructive criticism, but also as a liar?

To me, this is supremely ironical when I consider that I have yet to see ONE valid accusation of SoRB lying

Might I suggest that, assuming you really don't like the 'attention', you could simply get out of the quarry, or at least stop digging

Della wrote:

"True, but so what?"

OK, I realise this is going to sound patronising, but this is such a stultifying stupid question I have to assume the question has the intelligence of a three year old child or a chimpanzee.

OK... so what?

So... a person (specifically Argon0) posted to this site.

In their posting they used the following words:

"where in the bible (O or NT) does it specifically say that homosexuality is evil?"

That little squiggle at the end indicates that this is what we who speak English call a QUESTION.

That means they don't know something, and they want me to tell them.

It's polite, when someone "asks" you a "question", to, if you know the "answer", to give it to them. (It's also polite, if you don't know the "answer", to say "I don't know", rather than, for instance, making something up off the top of your head and swearing black's white that it's true. Just for your information)

So... I was "asked" a "question", and I gave the "answer".

So... that's what.

I was very clearly asked for specific examples of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality from the Old and New Testaments. I provided precisely that.

I don't understand how you can say "So what?" in response, unless you really are so benightedly dense that you don't understand the concept of answering a direct question (I do not rule this out as a possibility...)

"You despise the Bible, why should you care?"

I do not despise the Bible, any more than I despise Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", Hardy's "Far From the Madding Crowd", Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" or any other tedious work of fiction. What I do despise is people who use a tedious work of fiction to justify their hypocrisy, dishonesty, violence, bigotry and hate. This means you.

"NB - the NT reference does not require the death penalty, but you knew that of course."

Did I *say* it did? No. I did not. And to imply that I did is, surprise surprise, dishonest. You just can't help yourself, can you?

It really is tiresome, Della, when you attribute things to me that I have never said, and I have to, over and over and over again, point out that, once again, you're lying about something I've said.

What baffles me is why you do it in a forum like this where it is so incredibly easy to go back and point out precisely what I DID say, and *demonstrate* that you're lying, again.

Do, please, try to stop it.

SoRB

I know I am going to regret responding to you, Hoo, because you crave attention, and I shouldn't be silly enough to give it you.

<>

Of course you didn't *say* it, you're too cunning to do so. But to quote your good buddy six7s above, 'people here are going to think that you did', which is what you intended.

I wasn't answering you answering ArgonO, I was answering you.

Della,

"Of course you didn't *say* it, you're too cunning to do so."

Thank you . But I'm afraid cunning had nothing to do with it.

I didn't say it for two desperately simple reasons:

(a) it isn't true and
(b) it doesn't matter.

First, there is no mention of penalty in 1 Timothy. I gave, literally, chapter and verse, with the very very obvious intention that an interested person should look there. (Obvious to someone with two braincells to rub together...). Why would I do that if I wanted to give a false impression of what is said? That's the kind of thing YOU might try.

Additionally, (and I know you don't understand this, but I'll say it anyway) the presence or absence of an exhortation to the death sentence is IRRELEVANT. That was not the question I was asked, and therefore not the answer I supplied. I forgive your inability to understand this.

"'people here are going to think that you did', which is what you intended. "

Do not presume to guess the motives of people far more intelligent than you are, Della.

What I intended, in my answer to Argon0, was no more nor less than that Argon0 should look at the verses in 1 Timothy that I had indicated.

Your obsession with the death penalty merely reconfirms your obsession with violence in all its forms. What was that alliterative nickname you deservedly had again...?

SoRB

That alliterative nickname came from you of course, Hoo, and one day, if you grow up to be an adult (although you are now a tantrum-throwing child in an old man's body, which must look really weird to those around you) you will feel shamed of all the spite and nastiness you dish out to strangers...

Nothing else you have said is worthy of an answer, sigh...

That alliterative nickname came from you of course, Hoo, and one day, if you grow up to be an adult (although you are now a tantrum-throwing child in an old man's body, which must look really weird to those around you) you will feel ashamed of all the spite and nastiness you dish out to strangers...

Nothing else you have said is worthy of an answer, sigh...