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

<.

Tut, such self-importance! You know very well my son is not a believer at all, and that I have nothing in common with JtP... Do you think that if you repeat often enough that I do, it'll either become true, or that people will believe it without question? Your site was set up purely to harass JtP, (I had a look at it), and someone on h2g2 actually went so far as to photograph him, doorstep him and harass his family. I don't think that was you, because you wou;dn't do anything so dishonorable!


<>

I take it you mean you've known her longer than I have known her - but from my point of view, she's very loving, only to those who do as she says and thinks... She knows what she's done, and getting a man to defend her is a typical tactic of hers... There are always men falling over themselves to look after dear wee az!

<>

I thought it was a genuine call for peace. I accepted it. Then he attacked again. Sigh

<<And don't think I haven't noticed that you once again have ignored my reasonably put questions about scripture. <<
*What* reasonable questions?

<>

I was on this thread a year and a half before the Lady Az turned up. Now you want me to leave? Yeah, as you wish...

<>

I am walking away, and that should thrill you. I joined this thread in 2001. Her Ladyship joined in 2003. She's got rid of me. Good skills, Lady! Proud of yourself?



Blessings,

<>

Well, as you know it's all about the mind control thing I do. My best trick was getting everyone in my cabal to wear tinfoil hats to protect them from my mind control thought waves, but of course this only enhanced reception.

The Eds are also in my pocket, have been from the beginning.

And of course everyone's prime aim in the universe is to GET RID OF DELLA. We honestly can't think of anything else, we are obsessed, because you are *just so important* and you threaten and scare us all so much.

I know you haven't heard a word from me in almost two years, but you've seen through my feigned indifference and somehow *you knew* that I've been spending all this time - all those sleepless nights - plotting and scheming, scheming and plotting. And of course making ALL THOSE MEN do my bidding. I've barely had time to think of anything else.

<>

Oh no you're not!


az

I'm guessing that TAFKAD is The Artist Formally Known As Della.

I make no comment on whether the introduction of this name is a useful contribution to the discussion.

TRiG.

Hi Vicky,

<>

I didn't say you had, only that between you you picked on and upset some quite vulnerable people. As for having been to my site I somehow doubt it as it is invitation only and I can monitor and deny membership. If you had been there you would know that it was used to attack anyone - very poor attempt at a smear there indeed.

<<...and someone on h2g2 actually went so far as to photograph him, doorstep him and harass his family>>

The fact that JtP had his own site with his photograph and a full description of what he declared to be his sins, which he gave us all the link to, and that he was alone having lost his family due to these sins, sort of denies pretty much all of that argument doesn't it?

Did you know that for some years he turned up to public pagan events and attempted to preach Revelation at them? At one he was arrested for breachinbg the public order act (he spat on two young teenage witches). Hardly the victim you describe him as huh?

<<...she's very loving, only to those who do as she says and thinks...>>

Methinks the lady has defended herself well enough without my help.

<>

Which is not what I said, however you might twist it. I asked if you would answer my questions about scripture and whether you were going to continue to participate in the thread - rather than all this caterwauling and headbanging?

Go back a couple of pages, read the quoted scriptures and give me your christian insight on them. We were discussing the NT scriptural take on the role of women...

<>

No it doesn't thrill me, though you having a flounce doesn't surprise me either. It has happened before, and strangely whenever I try to seriously discuss scripture with you that you find uncomfortable.

You forget where you are m'dear. This is a virtual forum and no-one can get rid of you unless you breach the rules. Now that you finished your little tantrum are you going to discuss scripture or leave the floor to me to propose that Paul and Peter were mysoginists of the highest order.

Perhaps Andrew would care to comment. At least I can get a decent and thoughtful reply out of him without all these histrionics.

Bye Vicky, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Blessings,
Matholwch .

So, any progress on the god question? I await your final decision with great interest!

He's not there, but They may be

I think He exists in the minds of those who need Him to exist - much like Terry Pratchett describes gods as waiting around for someone to believe in them in order to make them real.

Which may also be the case for pagan gods ... if Math weren't so keen to notice them, would they be there? Or are they always there just waiting to be noticed?


az

Ah Az, you assume that I sought them out... but I didn't. I came across them through my close relationship with the land, and they made themselves apparent to me.

As always I add the disclaimer that I realise that I may be delusional, but that thee is no way for me to know one way or the other.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I didn't assume you sought them out, Math. I just said that you noticed them.

az

Oh okay, I did say 'keen to notice' but I meant keen in the sense of being aware of them. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

az

<< Now that you finished your little tantrum are you going to discuss scripture or leave the floor to me to propose that Paul and Peter were mysoginists of the highest order.>>

How many times? I've answered this! I answered that I believe these scriptures to be cultural rules, and as such, not for all time.. Paul says, it's for the sake of not scandalising the pagan or Jewish people around, with the freedom of Christian women.

That you keep claiming I haven't answered when I have, doesn't say much for your vaunted "honour"!

Here's a very interesting and thoughtful article about it all,
http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm
This one's even better...
http://www.incommunion.org/forest-flier/nancysessays/st-paul-and-women/
Extract:
<>

And last, here's a site which cites Edward's Mr Ehrman...
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm


<>

Don't hold back, Math, let us know what you really think! I am out, but only after repeating as I have endlessly since 2002, the answer you insist I've never given... Sigh...

Hi Vicky,

So let us recap shall we? My original question was as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Could I have your opinion on the following parts of the Christian moral code?

1 Corinthians
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing

Colossians
3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Peter
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

To Which you answered firstly thus:
"Math, as you've decided already what I would have said, there's no need for me to say anything."

And then:
"You know the answer anyway... my brother when he was alive, many others and also I, have answered *every* question you've asked and re-asked over the last 7 and a half years. You've run out years ago, and just keep repeating the same ones. This is not because you want an answer, it's because you're playing to the gallery, showing off your "cleverness". Man, you remind me of the "Scribes and Pharisees", with their constant trap-laying questions! (Not that I am claiming to be Jesus... just His follower.) If you know the Bible as well as you claim, you'll know what I mean..."

And finally thus:

"If you're referring to the "house-keeping" verses you quoted, my brother's view, and I concur, is that those strictures were cultural, and of their time, hence no longer valid. But it was vital for the growing Church not to scandalise the people in the wider community. There are plenty of Bible passages that say otherwise from what you've quoted. "

Really...
The cultures that Paul was addressing (mostly the Greeks and radical Jews of Asia Minor) were a lot more cosmopolitan than you give them credit for. It is true that the Romans held their women in utter subjection, but not here in the east of the Empire. To these good folk this message must have come as a bit of a shock.

For all of Paul's kindly words to the named women of power in the early Church, his general opinion of their status is very clear from the passages above. They were expected to be obedient, and silent in church (and thus on all church matters). They were not to be permitted any authority or to be able to teach men anything.

It is of course possible that many of these letters were taken out of context as so much was thrown aside in the various Councils of the second to fifth centuries that attempted to create a common creeed. However, what we have now is what is in the current Bibles - and I use the plural because there are quite a few very different modern Bibles to choose from, each claiming to be the truth.

The real question though for you seems to be do you accept the scriptures as:
a) the inerrant word or God, or
b) as an interesting collection of readings on the nature of Christianity and its background that should not be taken literally, or
c) something else? And if so what?

So once again I will try and get a straight answer out of you. Thanks for the links they were most interesting.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Dear Math,

I accept the Bible as the word of God. End of. There aren't different modern Bibles, there are different versions, and none differ significantly in essential matters, form each other.

I really don't know what you want from me. I've answered this particular question, I don;t know how many times since 2002, as have many other people.
I am beginning to fear that the only definition you have of a "straight answer" is one that agrees with you! Well, sorry, that just isn't going to happen.

Frankly, it's impossible for me to comply with your wishes. IMO, Paul was concerned about the opinion of his fellow Jews as much as anyone else, which a reading *in context* of the verses you keep hammering away with, would show you.

It is by taking verses out of context, that cults arise.

As with all Christians I have known personally, known in cyberspace or ever read about the answer seems to be' "The bits I like to recite mean what I want them to mean, when I want them to and dont when I conviniently forget about them or decide they mean somethingelse"

"End of".

As someone who alledges to be interested in debate might, without a hint of irony, put it.




It is interesting to read this word of god books and see how stupid this god character is. When you get a gist of how ignorant he is about realities of the physical world keen to conjure up myths that cant possibly be true, kill indiscriminantly people who have done no worng and discriminanatly kill those who have done no wrong other than being from the wrong tribe you get an insight into the actions of his followers.

Then there is the wrath need for vengence and the contradictory instructions.

Now ignoring the idiosycratic use of language, but. Just think how different this statement is:

"after his (alleged) conversion, he drowned his son (supposedly for plotting against him) and drowned/suffocated the particular wife who was the mother of that son.. Dastardly unchristian but very Roman-emperor-y behaviour! (This does not preclude his having a *genuine* re-conversion b4 death.. we cannot be the judges, that's important to know. I cannot, we cannot presume to assess someone else's standing in their *or* our religion!
Many say that the officialisation of Christianity under Constantine was the beginning of the ruination of it.. realistically, it couldn't have coped much longer under persecution, but.

from what Della normally tells us. How many times have we seen her claim she can see exactly what people are about yet a few years ago she said that it was impossible to for instance tell if someone was a true believer or just a pretender.
F71014?thread=150374&skip=0&show=20#p1513077

one love

Consistency? A little hard to find in the dogma of christianity.

In our efforts to bend over backwards to be "fair" to the faithists and to discuss only on an abstract theoretical level, all too often we forget how hate-ridden and viciously violent it is at its most fundamental level.

Wow, Blickster, I've read that post through and through, and I still don't see what you're getting at! You must have done some serious research to find a thread from 2001, (or do you have all my threads archived somewhere? Which argues that you're just a tad obsessive, well, to each his own, but you gotta admit that's weird. )

Nevertheless, I'd appreciate it if you could explain again exactly what your point here is... Because I can't see any inconsistency between my writing about Constantine in 2001, and what I said today.

Vicky

(Was Della then, am not Della now, why is that so hard for you to understand, Henry? )

Hi Vicky

"There aren't different modern Bibles, there are different versions, and none differ significantly in essential matters, form each other."

There are significantly different Bibles. The Catholic one has several more books in it for a start and relies, in many areas, on different primary source translations.

The King James has two versions - the original, now fairly rare, and the post 19th century revision in which a number of books were dropped.

The New International Version has quite a few controversial changes in translation of key words and phrases, and a general modernisation of the English used.

I could go on...

"I have answered this particular question, I don;t know how many times since 2002, as have many other people."

But only to your own satisfaction. You say you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, yet seem to disagree with any part that you find uncomfortable.

You say that you are beginning to fear that the only definition I have of a "straight answer" is one that agrees with me. Strangely I have been happy to accept straight answers on issues I disagree on with other Christians here, perhaps because they actually give a straight answer. Andrew never dissembles or tries to distract the flow of the debate through personal references.

"It is by taking verses out of context, that cults arise."

Indeed that can be true, but I am not founding a cult. I have simply brought together some pretty clear statements by Paul and Peter, that were all written over a period of perhaps ten years. If I had not, your argument would have been that that was an isolated statement and proved nothing.

So I am damned if I do show a consistent, if uncomfortable, opinion by the founding fathers of the Church, and damned if I don't. Doh!

Anyway the context is pretty irrelevant as you have shown time and again that you have precious little knowledge of the early church or the formation of the Bible.

For instance:
"Paul was concerned about the opinion of his fellow Jews as much as anyone else, which a reading *in context* of the verses you keep hammering away with, would show you."

These letters were not just to Jews though, but to small Christian communities in Asia Minor and Greece that had a mix of Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Egyptians, Persians, Galatians, Samaritans, Romans and many others.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<< The King James has two versions - the original, now fairly rare, and the post 19th century revision in which a number of books were dropped.>>

?

If you're referring to the Apocrypha, my mother had a 19th century KJV which she'd inherited from her grandfather the (Canadian!) Presbyterian preacher , and I had one printed in the 1960s which I had acquired from school - no difference that I am aware of...

<>

I didn't say you were, it was an observation!

<>

Not precious little no, but it is 12-15 years since I was studying the subject.

<>

I don't think you understood my point - which was, that in his instructions, Paul was concerned about the way thinks looked to the *non-Christian* Jews, (not just the non-Christian pagans, as you said before.)

Could you clarify something for me?

I am trying to understand your defence of Paul. Are you suggesting that it is okay to be a bigot (in his case, a sexual bigot) if one is only doing it to keep up appearances?

Secondly, why do you believe that he is a closet egalitarian, when all the evidence, including his writings, which you claim are from the part of the bible that is literally true, indicate the opposite?

Well to make it clear for you, Della:

You said we cant claim to know what's in other peoples' minds eg Constantine's. Yet time and again you have said that people who *claim* to be motivated by a genuine religious drive arent because *you* think what they are doing contradicts the teachings of Chirst.

Even though in his teachings Christ endorsed the whole of the Old Testamant you find, what is for you atleast, an accepatable way of squaring that circle with your own claims about a new covenanat superceeding the older ones.

My point is that both your own posts and the book you hold up as the truth contain contradictions.

The contraictions in the bible (all or any version you choose to site) allow you to point to different bits when you need a different *truth* to back up your own world view.



PS my obsession amounts to:

1, cliking on your name
2, clicking on your messages
3, clicking on older messages
4, clicking on the page I wanted
5, clicking on the thread in question
6, clicking on the post below you post
7, copying and pasting the post contants and adress bar for that post.

About 10 mouse clicks.