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

I thought I made it pretty clear that I was writing the above stuff with tongue firmly in cheek. I don't see anything 'sad' about a bit of lighthearted banter, and if I've understood correctly one of the basic aims of this forum is to use humour to satirise and undermine religious dogma. I'm sorry if my humour isn't to your particular taste, but as I say no offence is meant to anyone...

Awww, and we were having such fun...

I think the one crucial difference is that we're TALKING about it, and christians tend to be DOING it. I find attempting to deconvert (and I think it's de, not un) hugely fun - but I don't go out and knock on people's doors to do so - I'll wait for them to knock on mine... Hey, everyone's got to have a hobby, right?

(any similarities to the Scientologist "Fair Game" policy are purely co-incidental... )

Well, we are a bunch of heretics and heathens here, and the xtian front says quite a few nasty things about us, and our mating habits, etc. Poking a little harmless fun in their direction is exactly that... harmless. Besides, last time I noticed, there weren't any closet xtians patrolling this forum... the Business Forums have evolved into a sort of "Members Only" area... not that we could keep them out, if they were determined.

Yesterday's post came from a ZenMondo a little bit on the tired side. Apologies everyone. Looking back at the posts I see that *I* was the one that was heavy-handed. Though the idea of book burning really does stick in my craw... I had recently heard of a protest on a university campus where they burned bibles, so the comment about doing so was taken seriously by me.

My idea of "getting back" at the prevelant attitude that has made our lives uncomfortable by one-upping them in by demonstrating tolerance and love for my fellow humans without the trappings of their oppressive dogma. Basicaly giving a better demonstration of ideal Christian values without myself being a Christian. Instead of fueling a revenge-revenge cycle I try to find a balancing action that will nutralize the conflict.

I am not interested in continuing this umbrage of Christian vs. Non-Christian. I am not interested in winning. I am interested in mutual tolerance and understanding. I know (for the most part) where they are coming from, and I will respect those who show the same respect for me and my beliefs. Those who are being foolish, I will show their folly, but I am more interested in convincing those against us that there is no need for them to be so. I do not expect them to change their root beliefs, just put away their intolerance.

-- ZenMondo, hoping to make things more clear.

No es problema, Zendude. All our diatribes and sarcastic jokes are really aimed at the small percentage of overzealous idiots that need to be purged from society... although luckily for us, it seems they're inbreeding their way out. We're all after the same goal here. We all just want to be understood... and loved... is that so much to ask?

Yeah, of course, I wasn't *really* going to burn it...

*rapidly starts cancelling his bulk order of hotdogs*

Relax ZenMondo, no need to apologise for trying to save the forces of reason from becoming too unreasonable in their enthusiasm...

I'm not sure about all this 'love' business though. What does it really mean? My own experience of the nasty stuff has been that, without understanding and reason, it can quickly become as oppressive and destructive as hatred. In fact, at the extremes I would say there's little difference between the two emotions. I sometimes think that all strong feelings are essentially destructive and that the best thing to do with 'love' is to try to reason & rationalise it away much as one would do with hate.

This may or may not be something that I feel strongly about...

That's what Bhuddism (sp?) is all about, taking "the middle path". I know from experience how damaging it is to go to extremes (which I do entirely too often ).

I think it is important to show tolerance to those who do so in return. One of my friends at school is an uber-xtian boy (he's barely 19), and we get along b/c we respect each other even though we don't believe the same things. I was very impressed with him b/c of this, he actually talked w/me about our beliefs once (which is normally off-limits to avoid arguments which can't be won) w/o condemming me. I'm sure he prays for me though, which is only fair, since I hope that he will someday change his beliefs (he is young after all).

But, I think that we should show no tolerance to those who won't give it. However, we should do so in the nicest way possible (b/c I always love to behave more Christ-like than the xtians ).

What interests me about Buddhism is the idea of trying to find a middle way between forces such as love and hate (all the result of ego delusion, it seems), without losing a sense of compassion - not just for other humans, but in principle for all other life on earth. This seems like a neat trick, for those who can manage it... In fact, I would say that Buddhism is inherently a more compassionate, tolerant world view than Christianity, because it seems to emphasise the 'connectedness' of all life on earth, whereas Christianity insists that human beings are at the centre of the universe, having been placed there specially by 'God' to lord it up over all other creatures. It seems to me that, no matter how nice the individual Christian may be - and the majority of them are, I guess, in their way - they are doomed forever to reproduce this desperately arrogant human-centred attitude simply because it is at the very heart of their faith...

All things in moderation, especially moderation.

I got a quote somewhere... 'be entirely tolerant or not at all... follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess.'

That is a wonderful quote! I would love to know the source so I could find more like it! Did I mention love in any of my posts? Let me check quickly... Yep sure did. Though it was coupled with tolerance, I guess I was in a generous mood at that moment.

Love can be a very tricky word, to broad in english, that's for sure. I know at least 3 greek words that can be translated into the english "love" Eros (physical love), philos (brotherly love), and agape (unconditional love). This is off the top of my head without reference so apologies if I got something wrong. Hmm let me think as to what I was trying to say about love in my post.

Ah love, one of the most malleble words in the english language, it can be shaped to mean nearly anything resembling an emotion. A blameless motivation for any action. A shield for the concious. I don't know if it is 'love' that is to blame, or if the word is being misapplied on such a scale that the very definition has to change, and the original intent of the word is forever lost. I think the problem lays in love itself, but in the misuse of the word. I would not know how to define or describe love other than "I know it when I see it" yet that definition would only apply to me. Love must be as individual as our thumbprints. SO is there a state that is recognizable universaly as love? I would hope so. What it is, I don't know. Many cliches jump to mind: "No greater love hath any man than to die for a friend" "Love is patient, kind, it does not envy, it does not want..." Words fall short and fail to describe. I *KNEW* what I meant when I said it, but I am unsure as to how to describe it.

I guess that the love I was speaking of could be described as "a concious decision to cause no injury of any nature by action or inaction". Seems kind of cold and clinical to me written out like that, but looking at all that it implies a great deal.

Lets not let all my ramblings about love distract us from tolerance. I think tolerance is an important quality to demonstrate to those who would be against us. I am having great successes demonstrating tolerance being the only non-Christian in my workplace. So far, no one hates me even though I am a pagan. I'm actually well-liked. We will see how far Christian tolerance can go in the weeks to come. My brand of tolerance is not just letting them do their thing. It is that, but it is coupled with an understanding of where they are coming from. It is never telling them their beleifs are wrong simply because they differ from my own. It is giving them the benfit of the doubt, that they may just be right, and allow them to give me the same benefit. I am demonstrating a quiet reverence for their beliefs now in the hopes that I will have the same courtesy when and if my beleifs become topic for discussion. I will definatly keep you all abreast of this grand experiment!

Hmm, and there was I thinking "agape" meant love of god... just goes to show - never trust non-greeks on the meaning of greek words...

To tell you the truth ZenMondo, I see 'love' pretty much in the same way that I see 'God' - that is to say, just another one of those great myths we humans love to tell one another in order to convince ourselves that we're somehow special, separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Try convincing a sceptic that there is such a thing as love, and you'll find yourself tangled in knots no less quickly than a Christian trying to talk a non-believer into God-fearfulness.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cynic. Actually I'm pretty sanguine about such matters, most of the time anyway. It seems to me that the only people who need to fear a world without love are those who see the only alternative to be a world full of hatred - ie, bring one of them into the world and sure enough the other comes into being too, trots along in the shadows waiting to have its say...

'When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly; When people see some things as good, other things become bad'... Seeing as we're quoting stuff this evening...

Red-Dice: Agape being translated as "God-Love" probably is not a bad one. It is the word 'agape' John the apostle used when he said "God is love".

Lear: this statement of yours made me smile:

"... 'love' pretty much in the same way that I see 'God' - that is to say, just another one of those great myths we humans love to tell one another"

In stating love as a myth, you invoke love in our handling of the myth! See what I mean by the word just not being adequate in english? I don't ask for you to be convinced of the reality of love (pick your own definition!) just tolerate my belief in such a thing and not call me wrong-headed for doing so.

Lear- I don't know if I'm going to make any sense, but I'll try. I think that someone who can walk the "middle path" would be more compassionate than one who didn't, because they would be able to look at a situation from both sides. But I could be wrong. And I'm having trouble putting my thoughts to words, so I'm not going to say any more on the subject for now.

ZenMondo- I think there are five types of love that the Greeks defined. I don't know what they are though.

I really ought to do more research before I post these things.

Is it still quoting time?

"Love is Nature's way of getting those species which think too much of themselves to keep having sex" (not sure, maybe PTerry)
"Love ... chemically no different from eating a bar of chocolate" (Devil's Advocate)

Personally, I think that love (in the "in love" sense), is a chemical aberration in the brain, together with a self-aware being who is conscious of the effects of that aberration and tries to rationalise it. There have been enough documented cases of love, with enough similarity in symptoms, that denying love would be like denying the common cold.
That doesn't mean I have to ascribe it some mystical power, or say that it makes the world go round. I would expect that animals can 'love' to the extent that they are self-aware - which is something of an unknown quantity at the moment. I would also expect that computers/AIs will one day show diseases similar to love in nature - after all, they already "panic"... (only we call it "thrashing")

Zen Mondo :- Hmmm... Well spotted. There's one that got past proofreading...

How about 'myths we have an unaccountable compulsion to tell one another'. That sounds a little better. Anything to get rid of the dreaded 'l' word.


RobynGraves / GreyRose :- That sounds sensible enough to me, although to tell the truth I'm not too well up on the subject myself. I think compassion comes from understanding, and without a balanced view I don't see how a person *can* be understanding...


RedDice :- There have been documented cases of more or less everything, including sightings of the Virgin Mary and UFOs, etc... I suppose it depends on who's doing the documenting...

But I agree that it would probably be better not to try to give 'love' (whatever one understands it to mean) some mystical significance. Doesn't it really boil down to survival and protecting one's own, etc...

"Unaccountable compulsion" sounds like a good definition of love to me! But I kid you. Why the aversion to describing something as 'love' when it fits the description? I think it is not so much an aversion to love, but an aversion to what many percieve love as.

I think I can understand the hostility towards "love" being the same as the hostility one would have against "God". Its not that love or God screwed you or anyone over personally, but that fellow humans used 'love' or 'God' as a *justification* for doing the screwing. Perhaps you could in a convaluted way still blame love and God by holding them responsible for being there in the first place to be misrepresented. But the blame I fear, must be ascribed to our fellow man.

Again I can not stress enough the shortcomings of the English language when it comes to describing love. After all, its not any one thing, is it?

LOVE as Emotion
---------------

First there is love the emotion. And many flavors of that to boot! To dismiss love or any emotion as a simple(?) bio-chemical reaction is just petty. Emotions are part of the human experience. Knowing the chemical origins of an emotion does not diminish the experience of that emotion.

From personal experience, the feelings that arise from consuming chocolate (even the best chocolate I have ever had (truffles from the Chocolatier on Haarlemerdijk, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)) does not even compare to the emotions present when I embrace my wife, or play with my son. It might be close to holding the had of a girlfriend in high-school, and probably better than some other adolescant adventures I labled as "love". But the love I have for my wife, for my son, are not just emotional.
Synonyms: Affection, Joy, Contentment...

Love as a procreation motivator: Sure there is the emotional content that is there when you really, really, really want to have sex with someone. I won't deny it. But for this to be the end-all be-all of your definition is short-sighted. There are many people and things that I can describe as having loved. I didn't want to f*ck all of them.
Synonyms: Lust, Ecstasy, Passion...

LOVE as action
---------------

Love is not only a personal thing. It is something that can be demonstrated. Leaving the intangible realm of the emotion and entering the real world as action. Examples of this are well known, and I do not need to mention names here.
Synonyms: Compassion, Charity, Selflessness...

I guess its pretty clear I believe in love. Not the shallow Cardboard Hearts and flowers love, but something much deeper.

Sorry to drop in and set off some major topic drift... I tried to post to the "My Take On This Article" forum, only to find the page is blank. Something bad must've happened in the crossover to the new format.

I just wanted to share a little something I had e-mailed to me, which I found quite amusing. And for anyone who doesn't know, "Dr. Laura" is a radio psychologist (think "Frasier" with an attitude) who preaches back-to-basics morality. She has been known to chastise her callers and tell them that it really IS all their fault.

So here it is:

Subject: Open letter to Dr. Laura

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's
law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of
the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but
not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is
an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if
I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am
confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Sincerely,

Brother Francis

That is a good one billypilgrim

I've tried to avoid the dr. Laura program most of my life, does she have a good sense of humor?