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

Didn't people say exactly the same thing about Jesus? I mean, that guy was always speaking in parables and he had that 'who has ears, let him hear' catchphrase. We tend to forget, who have been influenced by more enlightened religions, just how primitive xtianity can be.

Justin - you forfeit your right to complain about Alji being offensive when you offend others and say that you don't care. That's just the way it is: Karma in action.

-Xanthia

Let's not be too hard on anyone for the way they talk or diss them for the way that they spell. (I am not keen to start harranging anyone for poor spelling, that has never been my forty either). Everyone is influenced by the folk around them and picks up a certain style of delivery and terminology which might be at odds with other groups. S'natural.

Personally, I always quite enjoy speaking with people from different backgrounds (social groups, cultures, countries, religions etc) and part of the fun is in trying to pick your careful way through to an understanding amongst the alternative lingos that come your way, (all the while dodging each others cultural faux pas minefields).
No offence to the hosts of this site, but it would be pretty darn dull if we all stuck to old fashioned BBC English.

Having said all that, I have spoken quite a bit with people who sound just like Justin and it can be an unsettling and frighteningly chilly experience. Unlovely and graceless maybe, but not deliberately or mailiciously offensive in my experience. Never mind, he said himself that the messenger may be flawed but the message is still in there somewhere.

Now how about getting back on topic? What was it again?

Om

Justin> "If the unsaved do not find it offensive [...] it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Justin> "Please don't mix pagan gods with the One True God,it is most offensive."

Hmm

I no longer have a problem with Artificial. It's the second bit that I don't believe.

I have integrity
You are forthright
He is offensive

I tell the truth
You tell it how you see it
He is deluded

I know god
You are religious
He is entitled to his opinions

I am saved
You are on the path to salvation
He is damned

etc
etc
etc

Ben, uh... what, exactly, are you conjugating?


I've always enjoyed what happens with the verb "to see" if you start off with the wrong present perfect tense:

I have saw, you have hammer, he has nails, we build house...


Oh, and Lucinda:

"Justin - you forfeit your right to complain about Alji being offensive when you offend others and say that you don't care. That's just the way it is: Karma in action."

Not only is "Karma" a pagan concept, but your ideas about fairness in being offensive only apply in a discussion between equals. The saved offending the unsaved is one method by which the unsaved might be shaken loose from their habits of thought which keep them away from Christ. An unsaved person saying something offensive to a saved person - that's just offensive, and there's no justification for it. They should stop.


I *did* grow up in the Bible Belt, y'know. They almost had me in Austin, Texas, back in 1999, but certain pleasures of the flesh called me back.


"They say Jesus will find you wherever you go
But when he'll come looking for you they don't know
In the meantime, keep your profile low..."

- Warren Zevon, from "Gorilla, You're a Desperado"


"A woman drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her." - WC Fields

Shall we consider you converted by Justin's evangelising then GTB?

OK. I've been the target of an offensive posting. Rather than complain, or attempt to get the drivel written at me removed (which I could have done), I replied - post 34. My reply was removed. I censored it, and reposted it - post 89. The censored version has been removed. No clue has been provided as to why the censored version is considered more offensive than the post it is replying to. So I'm going to post it again. I'm not interacting with 'Justin' any further, as I've made it quite clear that I consider it a waste of time for reasons I have explained. However, this reply to his offensive drivel is *going* to stay visible, and I'm censoring it no further. It is already considerably less offensive than several of 'Justin's' postings which remain up. I shall keep reposting it until it stays up. As someone once said, "We'll see who rusts first."

------------------------------------------------
I wrote posting 34, in response to something 'Justin the Preacher' said. I find a great deal of what is posted under that ID *extremely* offensive, but so far I haven't yikesed any of it - I personally believe 'yikesing' something you disagree with is the most cowardly method of debate imaginable. Of all the startlingly offensive posts, most offensively of all, so far, when I stated that I do not believe in God, this was the response:

"I am afraid you do believe He exists. The reason why you do not wish to acknowledge that at the moment is that you are comfortable. You do not think you need Him, and in one sense that is right. Until God allow our sins to come home to roost we do not see our need."

I was shocked by this, and responded - and my response has been censored for offensive content, since someone has apparently decided that although 'Justin' remains unmoderated, I'm not allowed freedom to respond in kind.

I would rather not have had to post here again, but I'm not being silenced.

I posted the following, and I've censored it and annotated it myself - my annotations are in [square brackets]:

"Oh dear oh dear oh dear, Justin, you really are a deluded arrogant little man, aren't you? [I defend this on grounds of "fair comment" - I honestly believe him to be all those things and think any reasonable person would agree]

You, a man so shockingly, wilfully illiterate that you can't even spell a word which has been on everyone's lips and must surely have been used at least ten times a day in every newspaper in the land for the last nine months, [by this I mean 'al Qaeda', which 'Justin' rendered as 'Al Queda' - in a posting which equated Catholics to this fundamentalist terrorist organisation]

YOU, presume to *TELL* me, a person you know nothing about and have never met and (I hope) never will, what I *believe*? And even better than that, you do so condescendingly! "I am afraid you do believe He exists."

[I can personally see no possible objection to the above paragraph]

I *could* protest that I do not. If I thought for a moment that you understand what I'm saying, that you are in any way my peer, or that you deserve any basic human courtesy, I would. I don't.

[Ditto]

There would be no point, so I shall waste no energy doing so. Some of my extensive writings on this site should convince any open-minded, intelligent person that I am a firmly convinced atheist, for sound reasons which I have considered at length. Since you are demonstrably neither open-minded nor intelligent, that information is offered for the benefit of others.

[As I say, I can point to specific postings which demonstrate these undeniable facts.]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. It's obviously pointless. The only sad part is that unlike many other fundamentalists, you don't even have the redeeming feature of comedy value. Unforgivably, you're not just [insult removed], you're not even FUNNY .

[Another posting making much the same point has survived moderation, so this can't be the reason it was pulled down, surely?]

You are, however, a textbook demonstration of my STRONGLY held belief that gods (lower case "g" deliberate, there are THOUSANDS of the things) are a holdover from mankind's simpler, pre-conscious past, that the rituals of religion and the teachings of the Bible and similar scriptures are the flailings of an obsolete priesthood trying to put the genie back in the bottle and return conscious humans to their preconscious state by any means possible, and that those few such as yourself who in this post-consciousness age who still "hear the word of god" are neurological throwbacks whose condition should be understood in its medical and cultural context, and if it poses any threat, treated with the proper drugs.

[This is an accurate summary description of the "Bicameral Mind" hypothesis put forward by Dr. Julian Jaynes in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". It is not an insult, any more than claiming that Justin's family tree includes savage, cannibalistic apes would be. I don't expect him to agree with it any more than I expect him to agree with the theory of evolution, but I'm doing nothing more than suggesting that a well documented scientific theory with considerable corroborating evidence is true. Back to the original posting...]

Personally, I don't even presume to tell others what they *should* believe. The sheer brass necked arrogance of someone who goes round telling atheists, not that they *should* believe in God, but that they *DO*, staggers me, it really does. If you truly are representative of what "proper" Christians are like, Justin, then I can only say that ...

[and at that point I made a joke. To my view, the joke was significantly *less* offensive than equating Catholics with al Qaeda terrorists. However, I do accept that it may, possibly, be offensive to some people. So I've removed it. If anyone wants to know what it was, ask me at the meet...]

H."

I had intended posting nothing else to this thread. I made the observation elsewhere, that there are as far as I'm concerned two possibilities where 'Justin' is concerned:

(a) he's an *extremely* good conversation simulator program, or failing that some other form of behavioural experiment - in which case I'm not playing. At the moment I'm swaying in my opinion... I started off simply believing it completely - it explained EVERYTHING. Now, I'd say I'm 70/30, where the 70% is "it's a computer" and 30% is "it's a human" - but I'm not a computer programmer, and Lucinda, who is MUCH techier than me, seems a lot more sceptical, so I'm tending more towards...
(b) he's a human being so incredibly devoid of the ability to think that I honestly considered the possibility that he might be a computer program - in which case I can see no possible value interacting with him. At least with the other fundamentalist Christians on this site you get the impression that they're capable of thought, even if they choose not to actually do much thinking. With 'Justin', I see an absence of thought the like of which I've never come across, and in a perverse way, I'm impressed. But I'm still not playing.

H.
------------------------------------------
If this post is removed, for any reason, I will repost it exactly as it appears here, unless and until it is explained in the moderation email which words remain which must be removed to make it acceptable.

Then I'll post it again with those specific words removed, as the moderation email suggests, and I quote "If you would like to re-write your contribution to remove the problem, then we'd be very happy for you to post it again." I've tried to do that once, but you didn't provide me with any clues as to what the specific problem was.

If you pull it again, I expect to be advise precisely of the specific words which must be removed.

H.

What of Karma being 'a pagan concept?' How does that make it less relevent?
oh, I forgot.
This is getting scarily like the Calvinist idea of double predestination.
Must we assume, therefore, if Justin et al's beliefs allow them to converse in a different, and obscure (and it is- deliberately) way, then the following could also apply?
Suppose 's deeply-held religious beliefs (which preclude all others and proclaim them false, heathen, etc.) teach that 5 is an even number, and has value equal to what 'pagans' term 2. He then proceeds to do sums, which are obviously incorrect to the rest of us, but we must permit it and go along as if we understand because they are his personal beliefs?
(and on top of that, we are continually told we are a) wrong, b) clueless, c) damned, and cannot argue becauese of our ignorance, which is further proof of our damnation)
And so on.

Hi Mandragora,

(have you got my Subeditor post about 'Mardy'? It's pretty much ready to submit, pending a reply from you.)

"He then proceeds to do sums, which are obviously incorrect to the rest of us, but we must permit it and go along as if we understand because they are his personal beliefs?"

Well, IF you wish to engage that person on the topic of arithmetic, and he refuses to enter into the common conventions, THEN yes, you're going to have to enter his world before communication can happen. More to the point, if he's trying to convince you (not rationally, but at a spiritual level) that 5 is even, then he's not going to go about it by entering into your world (ok, our world) where 5 is odd, because as soon as he speaks our language, he's already lost the first and most important battle. Whoever gets to define the terms has a distinct advantage. Justin's not granting us that advantage when it comes to matters of religion. Considering that he "knows" he's right, what he's doing makes perfect sense.

(I have now replied.

>Not only is "Karma" a pagan concept, but your ideas about fairness in being offensive only apply in a discussion between equals. The saved offending the unsaved is one method by which the unsaved might be shaken loose from their habits of thought which keep them away from Christ. An unsaved person saying something offensive to a saved person - that's just offensive, and there's no justification for it. They should stop.


In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was good or bad.

How does this differ from -
Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


Justin said that R.C. was based on pagan religion. I said the pagan religion it is based on is Mithraism but added that Paul saw Christianity as a follow on from Mithraism because the blood of a bull was not as good as the sacrifice of Jesus.
Paul said 'The Law of God requires that there is NO remission of sin without the shedding of blood.'

Zarathustra, a Zorostrian magi, had predicted a Messiah, and Jesus' birth was assumed by Paul to be his possible arrival. In the Persian holy texts, the Avesta, this Messiah will appear at the end of time and bring the triumph of good over evil and make a potion of immortality for mankind from the fat of a great bull mixed with Hamoa juice.

All the wicked, the rejected and unbaptised would be destroyed by Mithra by fire, and those accepted into Paradise would live with Mithra foreve with eternal life. After the annihilation of the unfaithful Mithra ascends into Heaven, at the end of time, after his Messiah has brought salvation to the saved, in a chariot of fire.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards U197895 looking for wiz kids to join)

I had been going to post the following after post 89, but I am bemused to find it has gone AGAIN with no explanation AGAIN. I find myself reminded of that bloody bowl of petunias.

Mods & Eds - for the record - I find JtP's persistant description of Buddhism (a religion whose written records go back 500 years before Christ was a twinkle in the Virgin Mary's eye) as 'Pagan' and 'Heathen' offensive to myself as a Buddhist.

But hey - that's ok.

Though I do have a request: when you pull posts, explain what *exactly* was offensive, eh?

Here - slightly tweaked - is what I had been going to post 24 hours ago.

Ben

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Blimey, Hoo, you *have* got a bee in your bonnet haven't you. [Understandably so, in my opinion, 24 hours and another deleted posting later].

I agree that JtP is exasperating in the extreme. (Since he has ignored everything I have said in this thread, and not had the courtesey to address me directly, I feel no particular compunction in talking about him rather than to him here.)

Incidentally I have come to the conclusion that JtP is (as I said originally) a real-live human being.

Steve may or may not be the same person. So far as I can tell we either have one person doing a sophisticated double wind-up, and if this is the case, I am seriously impressed. Or else we have two people, in which case Steve is dissing Justin to the extent of encouraging people to beleive that Justin is not real.

If Steve and Justin *are* different people, then Steve's dehumanising of Justin is profoundly unpleasant. So I find myself hoping that we have been suckered twice not once. But that's just my paradigm.

Moving on to our very own superintelligent shade of the colour blue who said this:

> Of all the startlingly offensive posts, most offensively of all,
> so far, when I stated that I do not believe in God, this was the
> response:

>> "I am afraid you do believe He exists. The reason why you do not
>> wish to acknowledge that at the moment is that you are
>> comfortable. You do not think you need Him, and in one sense
>> that is right."

To me, (Ben), this is astonishing solipsism, arrogance, insensitivity and stupidity on the part of JtP. But it wasn't directed at me, so I could just sit back and observe.

HVL then went on to say:

> "Oh dear oh dear oh dear, Justin, you really are a deluded
> arrogant little man, aren't you?" [I (ie HVL) defend this on
> grounds of "fair comment" - I honestly believe him to be
> all those things and think any reasonable
> person would agree]

Well I do - see above

And now we come to the paragraph which I for one find astonishingly solipsistic, arrogant, insensitive and stupid of Hoovoolo

> If I thought for a moment that you understand what I'm saying,
> that you are in any way my peer, or that you deserve any basic
> human courtesy, I would. I don't.

Let us assume that JtP is a person, and not a network of 3 PCs in someone's spare room, then that makes him your peer. He may not be as sharp or bright or clear thinking as you, HVL, or as debonnaire or blue, but as another human creature on this planet, he deserves basic human courtesy.

Voltaire: I disagree with what you say but defend to death your right to say it.

Hoovooloo then goes on to refer to one of the current theories of consciousness, (or lack of it), in a pretty impressive piece of insult and invective, and one which I would have been proud to have written myself.

The long and the short of it is that it leaves the reader very clear that JtP has been insulted for being less than fully conscious, but that HVL has put in the get out clause that neither were our ancestors, and neither indeed are most of us. Not so insulting after all, then. (And as an intermittant meditator, I have to say that I find the theory compelling).


When HVL then says:

> Personally, I don't even presume to tell others what
> they *should* believe. The sheer brass necked arrogance
> of someone who goes round telling atheists, not that
> they *should* believe in God, but that they *DO*, staggers me,
> it really does.

To which I have to agree.

As I said earlier to JtP (in a remark which has been ignored) 'if you don't diss me, I won't diss you'. (He continues to fail to distinguish between profoundly differing religious traditions - namely Buddhism and Paganism referring to both as Heathen - a rather in the same way he likens Al Queda terrorists (pace HVL, I know I cannot spell) and Roman Catholicism.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

In summary; JtP is offensive, and has managed to offend me, as well as Hoovooloo, and various others.

JtP does however have the right to do that within the rules of this site, without having his humanity undermined by some smart-arse.

HVL appears to have been goaded to the point of invective, and I for one sympathise with him. JtP is patronising and arrogant in the extreme.

And now the point:

I am profoundly concerned that HVL's posts have been repeatedly pulled, when JtP's behaviour:

- telling people what they *actually* believe is not what they think they believe
- persistantly dissing all religious traditions other than his own
- likening Roman Catholicism to Terrorism

is offensive in the extreme.

So:

JtP - treat us like the sons and daughters of the god you believe in

HVL - lighten up, for f**ks sake

Mods (or eds, or whoever) - be a little more even handed - you can pull JTPs more offensive posts without being accused of religious bigotry. (Pot, kettle, and all that, methinks).

Self - get the bejazuz off this site and get on with some work.

Ben

GTB: Justin forfeits the right to complain about being offensive in my eyes, and I'm informing him of this viewpoint. I'm sure that Justin is quite capable of informing me of his own viewpoint on that matter without you 'interpreting' him for me as if he was the Oracle of Delphi. Nor is everything I write in this thread for Justin's benefit, so not everything needs to be written in his language.

Thank you.
-Xanthia

Oh, and 106 was a unstructured act of declension based on word association. In fact it was just a work of fiction. Any resemblence to any person living, dead, risen, or born again is coincidental.

B

Well, Xanthia, I've a right to post my interpretations, and you've a right to tell me that they're unnecessary. I was enjoying my little exercise in interpretation, and I might enjoy it again. Not everything I write here is for your benefit, either. Justin is certainly welcome to explain himself, but he's already said that clear communication is not a goal of his. I was spelling out, for myself and others, how a communication style in which clarity is not a priority might work. Are you telling me that I'm wrong (in which case, why?), or just to shut up (in which case, no.)?

As for Ben and Hoovooloo finding Justin offensive, I don't get it. If someone tells me that I believe in Santa Claus, when I really don't, it doesn't bother me any more than if they tell me that 2+2=5. I'll think, "hmm, that's wrong", and I might point it out to them. If someone tells me that a mathematician (which I am) is the same thing as a scuba diver (which I'm not), and that both are in fact traffic cops, then I'm still not offended, just bemused, and possibly amused.

But that's just me.

HVL and I are offended by different things which JtP has done. To be honest, I am not that offended, and certainly not enough to flame him. I am always mightily irritated by willful misuse of language, and by debates in which people willfully ignore half of what is said.

I just want to bang everyone's heads together (mine included, I guess).

GTB - I think I *do* get what you are saying about communication. Someone once asked Pavlova what a particular ballet meant. Her reply was something along the lines of 'If I could put it into words, do you think I would dance until my feet bleed?

Some things are ineffable.

Ben

"Some things are ineffable."

Well, staying in this thread at 4:30 am ain't one of 'em, because eff it, I'm going to sleep.

G'night GTB - sweet dreams

B