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

Yes, they would. But they don't have anything to fear, seeing as they know where they are going, as I do.

Della, Hi!
Just got here, h2g2, and am finding my feet ie looking for soulmates. What you have to decide is whether that is a pseudonym for recruits or disciples. It is NOT to be confused with conscripts [cannon fodder] or cartel mentality.

If you find recruits and disciples, limiting, I NEVER rule out expanding it to include Playmates....just as long as they realise that it is NOT a game. It is the ONLY Game and we play to WIN. Black against White. Good against Evil. A New Crusades!

...and what caused me to write to you? Your pancake.

A strange world is going to get Stranger! There is a Light in the Darkness and we can see ourselves!

Bod,
Is that as far as you wish to go, choose to go?.....sodomy as an heterosexual excess. You have qualified this statement? by attributing it to others and have shown no inclination to consider it an abomination. Good for you!

Is it an Excess, an upgrade. If we are nothing, what can it possibly be?

Hi CP235,

Just a footnote. The first recognisable assembly line, with all the modern facets of such a beast, was created in Her Majesty's Royal Naval Dockyards of Portsmaouth and Chatham in the latter half of the 18th Century.

Although every wooden warship was essentially unique, it did need some common items to be able to function - namely ropes and block & tackle. These had to be standardised so that the refit and resupply of the Navy could go ahead smoothly in time of war, and were needed in enormous quantities especially as relations with France deteriorated. Thus the process was analysed, broken into elements, deskilled, and carefully supervised.

The next decent example was in the Harper's Ferry Armouries during the American Civil War, and it is from examining these that it is believed Henry Ford gained many of his ideas.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.
(Ex of HM Dockyard Portsmouth).

Once you have accepted the notion of superior and inferior, you automatically have a winner? So, "..the inferior force must be infinitely self-replicating, in order for the other not to win.", is delusionary. It is Self Denial.

This is a crossroads, a pivotal point in Thinking. To PROCEED past this point, is to understand, or start to understand the very meaning of Life.

In the battle between Good and Evil, God and the devil, Omnipotence prevails [and if I knew what omnicient meant, I might also include it]

And as far as....."in any particular region, one might be winning while the other was winning in another."...goes, the mistake you made was in not writing....In any particular region, one might be winning while the other was losing, rather better, in the other.

Does that give you Hope?

Hi Della .

I don't think that Bod and I really dislike or distrust Paul himself (despite his past as a revenuer). He just represents a turning in the road of the development of what we now regard as modern christianity.

He walked into history at a time when the early Christians were a bit confused. If he had not appeared and led the faction that eventually won, Christianity may have remained a small Jewish mystery cult.

The thing I don't like about Paul, and the writers who are attributed as him, is how he turned the message of Jesus, which was essentially loving and accepting, into a dogma of intolerance. Much of what the less savoury elements of the modern church espouse is based more or less upon the Pauline teachings (justified with large helpings of very selective OT quotes). Paul was the first interpreter, for although he had plenty of first hand accounts to work with, he had no direct experience of the source.

It is interesting to look at Paul and what he promoted and ignored in the Christian teachings, in the context of his background, especially his early Mithraism. The similarities between Mithraism and what the early church became as a result of Paul's interpretations and defining commentaries are quite breath-taking.

It is also interesting to note that at the Council of Nicea, where the majority of the scholars were greek-speakers from Asia Minor, there were few if any Jews or Hebrews. When they cobbled together what is now widely recognised as the politically-correct (for the Roman Empire that is) versions of the NT and OT they relied heavily on the one reliable non-jewish commentator from the period - Paul.

I do find it strange that so much of Paul's writings survive that anarchic period when Christianity walked the edge of a knife, yet those of the other Apostles are so much rarer. Perhaps his party were more active than those of Peter or James. We shall never know.

Anyway I ramble on. Della, I know it is becoming increasingly popular to have a go at Paul, but he does represent a hardening of the early church. Without him I doubt that Christianity as we know it could have survived and perhaps people are beginning to recognise that that would have been a good thing.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Martian .

Not entirely sure what you are trying to prove but I will question one of your apparent assumptions.

"In the battle between Good and Evil,"

What battle? Good and evil are adjectives, not natural forces. One man's good is another's evil etc., etc. The concepts of good and evil as forces are part of the political propaganda of many major religions, and especially Christianity. By setting itself up as the sole representative of 'good', christianity attempts to force all people of conscience into its camp, or be associated with 'evil'.

Both Bush and Blair tried this very same tactic in their attempts to convince their populations, their voting publics, to support their recent illegal war. It failed, just as Christianity is failing.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

And HOW are you going to "employ" a GOD. Do you recognise his CV? His worth would be priceless and thus CANNOT be bought, only "sold".
He is there to GIVE.....everything he has, so whatever he has, he gives back. He HAS EVERYTHING and this Leap of Faith, A Belief in GOD, is your passport to his world.

And "his world" is a more PC way of interpreting "his kingdom"

Mat..,
"Without him I doubt that Christianity as we know it could have survived and perhaps people are beginning to recognise that that would have been a good thing." This is a very ambiguous statement!

Does it support Christianity as the Church sees it or does it recognise that the interpretation of its teachings, attributed to Paul, are unsafe. Even wrong. Is this at the heart of the debate within the Church, at the moment......its difficulty in coming to terms with the issue of Homosexuality [which is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg...no pun intended]?

Was Paul, "a bit confused"...."in the context of his background, especially his early Mithraism. The similarities between Mithraism and what the early church became as a result of Paul's interpretations and defining commentaries are quite breath-taking."?

"If he had not appeared and led the faction that eventually won, Christianity may have" become what it is to be!

Blessings
A Man from Mars

What is the point of following something, in which you have doubts?

My Good and Evil are not adjectives. Why do you see them so?

I see a subtle nuance in your post which you may like to confirm or deny for me. It may be a typing error but its significance is not lost on me, if it was intentional.

I refer to Christianity and christianity

CP - Oh, yes. I suppose both of our ideas could be right, but yours seems more likely. Then again, as someone with now Agnostic Primist tendencies, I don't feel either can be measured in terms of success or power - they're just always there.

Eminently equitable!..... it allows for dialogue and progress along parallel paths towards what can only be a common goal. Truth. An absolute value of many facets.

CP? this I do not understand and I have assumed that you recognise the semantics involved in Christianity and christianity. Thus my positive response. Also Fnord Prefix caused momentary confusion but was quickly dismissed.

The knack is to enjoy the confusion and Don't Panic.

The Confusion no longer confuses me.

What semantics involved in Christianity? Why did I cause temporary confusion just because I was not replying to you?
CP is Conspiratorial Primist.
I'm not afraid to acknowledge occasional confusion. It's the best way to keep an open mind free of arrogance.

"CP is Conspiratorial Primist." This I have subsequently discovered, thank you.

But, it "did cause temporary confusion just because I was not replying to you?"
And is YOUR acknowledged occasional confusion, caused by the semantics being involved in Christianity?
I cannot see that as being "the best way to keep an open mind free of arrogance."

I have a question which you may be able to help me with. It is.......

Is there any divergence of considered opinion, within the whole realm of the Christian Churches, as to the reason for Judas's betrayal of Christ? What was the reason?.......and yes, that is two questions more.

Hi Martian

Yes I believe that many of the fundamental teachings that support the present churches are wrong. They reinforce intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time claiming a monopoly on compassion and mercy. Such hypocrisy should never go unchallenged.

A person's sexuality is quite irrelevant to the value of that person to themselves, their community and humanity at large. There again I am not surprised for the same sections of the Anglican Communion in the USA that are prosecuting this present campaign of bigotry are the same ones that supported segregationist policies in the Old South. It is aslutary to note that when they couldn't prevent the appointment of a homosexual bishop by reason and prayer they turned to trying to smear him instead. he has also received death threats. Not a good PR day for christianity in general.

I do not think that Paul was confused at all. He took a poorly organised sect and refined its teachings into something that suited his own prejudices and desires.

I'm sorry but I am yet to see a clearly identifiable movement to return the christian church to its pre-Paul 'purity'. I doubt that it could even be achieved, even if it was desired.

"What is the point of following something, in which you have doubts?"

An interesting postscript Martian. Was it aimed at me? If so I wonder if there has been some confusion for I am not Christian, but druid. if it is a general statement then I am much more comfortable with a person who has honest doubts and constantly seeks to discover more about himself and his spirituality, than someone with no doubt whatsoever. From the latter stock are born fanatics and danger.

"My Good and Evil are not adjectives. Why do you see them so?"

...Because they are? As I said before I believe that good and evil are not natural forces. What one person sees as an evil act another may view as good, or at least necessary for the greater good to prevail. The personification of these two adjectives has led to more evil acts being carried out in the name of 'Good' than possibly any other religious cause.

"I see a subtle nuance in your post which you may like to confirm or deny for me. It may be a typing error but its significance is not lost on me, if it was intentional. I refer to Christianity and christianity."

I don't quite see your point, I make no distinction, not like I would when writing 'god' or God', or 'him/his' and 'Him/His'. In these latter examples the captialisation allows me to distinguish between the generic term god and the christian God. Apologies if this caused any confusion.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

>>Yes I believe that many of the fundamental teachings that support the present churches are wrong. They reinforce intolerance and bigotry, while at the same time claiming a monopoly on compassion and mercy. Such hypocrisy should never go unchallenged.<<

Math, as you already know, I am a Christian. And yet, I have yet to throw a stone at a homosexual. I don't attempt to burn the practioners of buddism at my school. How can this be possible? Should I be burning them? Christ never said that.

Math, you don't really believe that. You think you do when the example is homosexuality. If the sexuality is that of a paedophile, you soon change your tune. I'm not saying that either of your conclusions are wrong, but the general principle that you allegedly base them on isn't how you get there!

Mat,
We are wise enough then to dispense with the semantics in CAPITALISM, or did I mean to say CAPITALISATION. No matter, more of that can follow.
I have visited your space to find out who you are, Mat, and came away embracing the Druid mindset. I could read nothing there which I disagreed with and found you in agreement with everything that I believe in. I have no wish to confuse the issue by saying that I am "of another persuasion" because if I agree with Druid philosophies, then I must have Druid sympathies. The fact that they are identical to my own perceived values should be a cause for celebration.
Now, having re-read your post and my last paragraph, I realise that I have always assumed Druids and Christians to be different, even incompatible, whereas there is a common christianity.

Paul's problem was that he had no one to follow. The flame had gone. And although there was light, darkness would surely follow the Day. And the light has dimmed ever since but only because we shield our eyes from the brightness. We have not been looking for that which is missing.

The Bible is not based upon the teachings of Christ, it is based upon the teachings of disciples of Christ. What could they have known of the Man?

Where are the teachings of Christ?

Do you doubt the desirabilty of "a clearly identifiable movement to return the christian church to its pre-Paul 'purity'." And if it is desired, what is to stop it from being achieved?

We do have a divergence, Mal, in our views on Good and Evil. It is nothing of significance and we can surely agree to disagree, for now and forever if we choose. In the context of what you perceive as being my Good and Evil, what is your opposite to Love. Love to me is Good and it is what I use to fight Evil. What is it that YOU see, I am fighting against?

Perhaps you might care to consider what we are discussing as a "clearly identifiable movement"??!!

Have you considered that there may be god, God and GOD and.. a compound, rather than simple, entity?

Ciao!

But are you tolerant of a situation, which quite BLATANTLY, is discriminating against certain sections of society? Even though you may not yourself discriminate, the Church which you belong to does! What does that tell YOU about your Church? Are its responses on the issues of today at one with your own views?

But you are not alone in questioning the direction the Church is taking and it needs your feedback to survive.....and grow.

Toxxin,

We DO have rules and we think them THAT GOOD, that we make them LAW. It is called a Control Parameter and you cross it, or think to cross it, at your Peril.

The Law would benefit from this mindset, as would we. Those who would break the Law steal from us ALL, even themselves. How we treat them is a matter of ongoing debate or are we happy with rising numbers of offenders. If you don't stop them offending how are you going to combat the rising numbers. How are we going to stop them offending if we do not discourage them. And as we use, the Law, and it is not working, what does that tell us about the LAW?

Maybe you were in Agent provocateur mode when you posted, toxxin. Certainly I didn't feel ANY sympathetic response to paedophilia emanating from Math's post.

Normally knowing Good from Bad is enough to know right from Wrong.