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

"thanks, nice to be welcomed back, after about 2 years away, are you a memeber of the Pagan society, I have a friend who is a member of the management"

I am a manager in the Pagan Federation, Istevan. Whom do you know in the PF?

Whoops - answered on the 'half Jewish' thing before I got to that part of the thread where Istevan joined in.

I'd better cough myself then - I went before the Beth Din at the age of 19 asking to become Jewish, and they said "Come back when you're 21".

I knew what conversion entailed. It isn't so stiff if you choose to convert to Liberal or Reformed versions, but I had appoached the orthodox - the version most people think of, whigh respects all the dietary laws and attends syngogue every week etc. To convert to orthodox, 30 years ago, meant living with an orthodox family for a while (might have been a year) to learn Judiasm from the inside - as most of it goes on in the home, not in the synagogue. It would mean having a ceremonial bath once a month after a period for the rest of my life, to be ritually cleansed, and keeping three sets of cutlery, plates and drying up cloths - and so on.

Although I never went back, I did spend the intervening years studying Jewish history and culture. So I know some of the 'why'.

<>

That's very interesting, HS! I am immediately curious - why did you want to do it, and why did you change your mind? (It'd all make a really good Guide Entry.)

<>

This is somewhat conjectural, as we have no reliable written sources for the inheritance and genealogical customs of the Jews prior to this time. The 10 tribes deported by the Assyrians are supposed to have been lost, and only the remaining 2 tribes deported to Babylon in 586 BCE constitute the "returnees".

Because the OT as we have it is now generally thought to be a late creation (and the extent to which it is based on previous written sources is uncertain), the only reliable source of this sort of information about the inhabitants of Palestine during the kingdom period would be that derived from archaeology (frankly a total mess ATM) and in particular written records discovered "in situ" (basically almost none). But there is certainly no evidence that the customs of the area were any different to those of the peoples that surrounded them.

Noggin

Sceptic

>><><<

>>That's very interesting, HS! I am immediately curious - why did you want to do it, and why did you change your mind? (It'd all make a really good Guide Entry.) <<

Yep. Now there's a bit of Sceptic's eclectic religious history I didn't know...

I wonder how much more there is??

Jez

Hi RDO, Blackberry

Virtuous non-believers would end up in Heaven like virtuous Catholics, perhaps via Purgatory, also like Catholics. But I don't want to appear misleadingly glib: virtue is being measured in a particular way, and I suppose it would follow the beatitudes, the ten commandments, etc.

The thorny question is what happens to babies who die unbaptised. As RDO says, traditionally, following the speculation of St Augustine of Hippo, they go to Limbo, which could be visualised as the 'fringe' (that's what the word means) of Heaven. But this was always an unofficial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to be open on this subject, perhaps because it seems hard to believe that Jesus would not welcome them in. The relevant point is no.1261.

Hi Istevan

I was unaware of the Pagan Society here despite two years served before the lash. I am also surprised that such a society has 'management'. 'Security' might be a better term.

In my experience put five pagans in a room and you will have one love affair, a probable knife fight and an instant schism .

We are a loveable bunch.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

"Why should what I read or watch be governed by what a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim or Jew deems to be suitable viewing or listening for themselves?"

This is more to do with personal opinion than religion. i.e. some people find things offensive that are nothing to do with religion. Programmes with strong language or posibly disturbing ideas often carry warnings and are only broadcast after a certain time. That is an example of the views of the more senstive effecting what everyone gets. I suppose it's a sort of 'move at the pace of the slowest' situation, only it's 'broadcast only what's acceptable to the most sensitive on any subject'. Of course this isn't actually followed, but when it isn't complaints arrive.
I think the BBC and other broadcasters generally do a good job of warning before a broadcast that some may find it offensive. Did they do this for the Jerry Springer Opera? Would they if they were going to broadcast something that Pagans would find offensive? Now that's something I wouldn't have thought of before I came on here.

""I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on your gods; I don't want to offend, but I don't believe in them."

Oh, I don't have a problem with that sort of disagreement - what I have a problem with is your quoting of the original biblical verse as though it were praiseworthy to be offensive to someone else's god.

And I don't have a problem with that, either, so long as you don't mind anyone like me calling your god a fanatical, sex starved, jumped up desert wight. "

Please define my god by what his book, the Bible says about him, rather than by what any humans interpriting it have. Either he doesn't exist, or he is as described there.
And what is a "jumped up desert wight" please? I've only come across the word 'wight' before in Tolkien, & would like to have your definition of it.

As for my "quoting of the original biblical verse as though it were praiseworthy to be offensive to someone else's god", I was actually quoting it to show that the bible does not use the word 'god' exclusively for the One True God. (Although I think it was more of a paraphrase than an exact quote.) Of course, it is never right for a human to be offensive about another's beliefs.

"about as engaging as talking to an alcoholic who swears he's interested in the discussion but inevitably eventually asks for money to go and buy a drink"

Intresting comparison. I can see your problem; it's hard to have a discussion with anyone if they're not willing to give a little, someone who KNOWS he's right.

"I mean - what is it with the need to quote bible verses at someone whom most christian don't believe has read the bible? "
More to the point of had you read it or not, which I think you said you had (some of, at least) is whether you belive it or not, which I assume (dangerous, that) you don't. In that case quoting it to you to prove a point would indeed be pointless.

"If the 'Christian Faith' - and I don't think for a minute these anti-democratic bunch of whinging idiots represent the majority of ordinary christians - demand respect, it is about time they bl**dy well earnt some."

You've raised a separate issue here Moke. Should things which some people could potentially find offensive come with a warning so that people can choose to avoid them? (The Jerry Springer Opera was well-publicised: people knew what it was about.)

I'm inclined to think that they should. BBC 7 sometimes warns that an upcoming programme 'contains strong language'. This is not censorship, it is courtesy. The only problem is that there are a lot of very different people about and you never know what may offend them. Warnings before foul language, sex, or violence should be, and usually are, issued.


On the other topic, asking whether highly offensive material should be published at all, I say the BBC, as a public-servise broadcaster, has a duty to avoid gratuitous offense.

WARNING: FROM HERE ON I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

The blasphemy in the Jerry Springer Opera was not an intrinsic part of the show. It was thrown in purely to shock people. It should, therefore, not have been broadcast.

TRiG.

Hang on there! There is some truth in the claim that the BBC (and the British mainstream media in general) is much happier to lampoon Christian churches (particularly Anglo- and Roman Catholics) than it would be to mock any other religious group (including, of course, Pagans). It could be that these "whinging idiots" -- or, at least, some of them -- were merely asking that the same respect be accorded to them as to everyone else.

Just a thought.

TRiG.

"So I guess my Jesus action figure would be out then?"

S'long as it wasn't worshiped/ prayed to/through I'd be hard put to say what's wrong with it. Sounds a bit blasphemous though.

"the Jews believe they are God's chosen people......they don't try to convert the rest of the world, as Christians do, because they believe *they* - and only they - get to be chosen and keep God's covenant with Abraham."

What about verses in Micah saying that ten men of different nationalities will join the Jews?
Are the Jews still waiting for the Messiah? (This last being the obvious divergence of the two; us Christians believe that the Messiah has come.)

Us believe, do us?

Jewish reqirements for the messiah;

'Moshiach will be a normal human being born from human parents. He will not be a god, or a “son of god”.

Moshiach will be mortal. He will not live forever. When he dies he will be succeeded by his son, like any normal king.

Moshiach will not atone for our sins. Every person must atone for his own sins; no one else can do it for you.

Moshiach will not change the laws of the Torah in any way. If he attempts to do so then we know that he is a false messiah.'


alji

'The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15)'

'The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept.'


alji

"Risk Assessment is simply : how likely is it that this accident/danger occurs versus what will be the fallout if it does occur?
The next evaluation is : what is the cost?

So any engineering scheme tries to balance reducing risk to vanishing point versus the cost of doing so. The bigger the risk (which covers both the likely incidence rate and the likely damage) the higher the cost that should be borne."

OK, I agree with that. But what else do you do when you drive a car? I should be able to think of ther examples but I can't at the mo. The point is that there is nothing wrong with drawing a line of this kind, it's where it gets drawn that makes it in some cases immoral. I've been reading a book of lessons to be learned from disasters, written by a phorensic innvestigator in USA who would investigate after some builing had collapsed. The most common problems seem to be:
1. The building's design was based on innacurate information.
2. The builder cut corners in trying to save money.
3. The owner/ocupier didn't maintain the building.

"this hell not having any basis in scripture thing, what about Revelations?"

Haven't a lot of time at the mo.
As far as I know, the only concious being that Revelation refers to as being tourtured forever and ever is the Devil himself; so at least you know he won't be doing the touturing.
The Bible uses the Hebrew word 'sheol' and the Greek word 'hades' to mean the common grave of mankind. Jesus likened death to being asleep, which is in harmony with Ecclesiasties 9:5,10. People in this unconcious state are 'in' sheol or hades.
More l8R, gota

I'm not sure where the English word 'hell' or its meaning came from. But the unfortunate thing is that Bibles continue to translate 'sheol' and 'hades' as 'hell' in English, even though they don't mean what we mean by hell. By this method, Jesus was in 'hell' for 3 days before he was ressurected.

In Revelation, it says that death and hades, or 'hell', will be thrown into the lake of fire. This means enternal destruction for them; no one will die ever again.