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

To - everyone else - You've gotta love the capitalisations, ain't ya?
To - MFM. No, my confusion does not come from Christian semantics. This is because Christianity has no semantics. And if it did, I wouldn't be confused. And if I was, I wouldn't care.
As for the Judas question - well, obviously his motivation must be that the Devil persuaded him to.
"Those who would break the Law steal from us ALL, even themselves.". I support those who break the law, unless it results in permanent physical harm. It's a symbol thing. It may well be confusing, since symbol is a bit of semantics, but I'll be happy to explain. The Control Parameter is just that - a status of control.

Hi Myst

You know that I carefully discriminate between the actions of the organisation and of the individual. I expect that a large proportion of modern christians have little or no personal animosity towards homosexuals. But this does not detract from the fact that they are denounced daily from the pulpits of almost every christian denomination.

Christ may not have declared homosexuals to be evil-doers but the OT is pretty specific and makes it a death sentence for man to lie with man, never mind the punishment for sodomy .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Toxxin.

"If the sexuality is that of a paedophile, you soon change your tune."

You are right, but not for the reasons you might expect. I steadfastly do not believe that paedophilia can be defined as a 'sexuality'. It is a system of power and abuse that satisfies the psychological inadequacies of some very sad people.

A 'sexuality' implies that those taking part in the behaviour of that sexuality are all well-informed and consenting. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality and possibly even Celibacy all pass this test. Paedophilia does not as it relies on the misleading of children, the abuse of children and the feelings of power that it gives its adherents. It has no more justification than saying that Rape is a sexuality, with which it has much more in common.

I think that better defines my attitude.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Toxxin.

"If the sexuality is that of a paedophile, you soon change your tune."

You are right, but not for the reasons you might expect. I steadfastly do not believe that paedophilia can be defined as a 'sexuality'. It is a system of power and abuse that satisfies the psychological inadequacies of some very sad people.

A 'sexuality' implies that those taking part in the behaviour of that sexuality are all well-informed and consenting. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality and possibly even Celibacy all pass this test. Paedophilia does not as it relies on the misleading of children, the abuse of children and the feelings of power that it gives its adherents. It has no more justification than saying that Rape is a sexuality, with which it has much more in common.

I think that better defines my attitude.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Math, in this statement, "a 'sexuality' implies...", you missed out the "To me...". But other than that, there's no possible way you could be wrong...

Hi Martian .

As a druid I claim no copyright on the philosophies I espouse. I recognise that not only will some of them have been seen before in our history but also that many of them will be shared or held in common with people of other paths and none.

For instance there are many christians of my acquaintance with whom I agree in many areas, and they with I. However, there are also points of significant philosophical difference. This is how it should be, for if we all agreed there would be little point to existence .

Christians do have a problem though with the nature of the source of their scriptures. Unlike the Quran, which was dictated by the Prophet Mohammed and then the written version carefully checked by him, the New Testament is mostly eye-witness statements and interpretive commentaries (with one wild and wacky visionaty experience at the end).

The problem with eye-witness statements can quickly be seen by comparing the four gospels. This problem is compounded by the insistence of the less reflective churches that every word is divine truth (obviously for a variable value of truth).

I do doubt the desirability of a return to pre-Pauline 'purity'. I also doubt that without unfettered access to the Vatican's closed libraries that it is even remotely possible.

I agree that it is healthy for us to disagree on the nature or semantics of good and evil. This mutual respect though should not necessarily deter us from discussing the subject .

I have pondered long a hard on the nature of divinity. My present belief is that there is not a single or even compound divine being, but rather many of them. I base this on my own personal interactions with them, but what wisdom is yet to be revealed to me as I grow may change that in time.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Fnord .

I thought by ending with the statement that this was a definition of my attitude that I inferred that it was 'to me', but hey ho.

As for there being no possibility of me being wrong, watch this space. I have an almost infinite capacity for foul-ups, mistakes and misinterpretations . But as the first step towards wisdom is said to be in knowing just how little you know, there is hope for me yet as I know sweet b*gger all .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Fair 'nuff indeed. And, I meant that you can't be possibly proved wrong by anyone, so for all intents and purposes, you're just a modest and abashed perfect deity. All Hail!

Hi there Math, and you Fnord. That is special pleading disguised as a definition. There was doubless a time when many would have said that a 'sexuality' implies that those participating are of opposite sexes.

I would say that a 'sexuality' is whatever a person finds to be sexually arousing. This normally owes little or nothing to choice. If it happens to be sheep, then it is ruled out according to the definition you give. No understanding or consent there!

Hence your constraints, for me, rule too much out. Will you now add a 'species' clause? I'm just arguing for the sake of it as usual. You're happy enough with that Math, I know. Fnord, I'm quite good at it too.

Ah, it's a merry old life we lead. Nothing wrong with arguing.

"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."

Paedophilia, if defined as simply having a sexual attraction, isn't wrong. Acting on that attraction is wrong becasue it violates the child's rights (not because it is unholy or something)

"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?"

No. Frankly, it gives me concfusion.

"[and if I knew what omnicient meant, I might also include it]"

Omniscient means "all konwing". In a way, it is as important as omnipotence. Assuming that either is possible. I highly doubt that omnipotence is possible (lets not get into that series of paradoxes again), but am not sure of the possiblility of omniscience. I doubt it, though.

Hi, Math. Thanks for the information on assembly lines.

Some day, I'll have to learn ot stop trusting American public schools as a valid source of information. (My 7th grade science teacher told the class that fish aren't animals!)

The basic idea of the assembly line for mechanical goods seems to partly come from Eli Whitney (of cotton gin fame). He came up with the idea of interchangable parts, which seem essential to assembly lines. He made guns with identical parts for the US Army.

"(with one wild and wacky visionaty experience at the end)"

I've heard it suggested (by a non-Christian) that Revalations is really a disguised critisism of Roman rule. For example, the Number of the Beast, in the old Hebrew system, comes out as Nero Caesar, who had persecuted Christian beofre Revelations was written.

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

Exactly. which supports the point I was making to Della, that just as some of those who don't believe in an afterlife want there to not be one, some of those who do believe in one would fear the alternative. You (or she) may say that there is other evidence for Christianity besides that, but I say that there is also other evidence for the lack of an afterlife besides that.

"Christ may not have declared homosexuals to be evil-doers but the OT is pretty specific and makes it a death sentence for man to lie with man, never mind the punishment for sodomy."

Of course, it makes death sentences for some other things, too.

Like Children disobeying their parents, I think. I'm pretty sure they are to be stoned to death.

tOxxin

Paedophilia is not a choice of sexuality!!! It is merely a foul and disgusting way for inadequate sub-humans to find sexual gratification at whatever cost, such people have no feeling of compassion or care for their victim, love has no place within the heart of a paeophile, they do not know even what the word means and represents, they can only think of satisfying their own sick desires, at whatever cost.

Innocence should be preserved, children should be loved, nurtured and protected, how can you possibly mention paedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality??

Remember Tox, whatever happens between consenting adults is their business, nothing to do with anyone else at all, they know what they are doing and agree to do whatever they choose, great, but a paedophile is a predator, preying on the innocent, forcing their sick desires upon a child, who has no choice in the matter, can you not feel the fear of the victim? the horror? the helplessness? the damage inflicted for the rest of his or her life? just so some sicko could find 3 minutes of sexual pleasure?

Sex should be something pleasurable for both parties, not just for one, and paeophilia and rape fall into the same category, so by saying paedophilia is a form of sexuality, therefore rape must also be so as well.

Jane

And I don,t care if anyone thinks that I am writing emotionally on the subject, yes, I am, I cannot possibly "intellectualise" anything which harms children!!! Paedophiles damage and destroy, it is their whole purpose in life, that is the real pleasure that they have.....destruction, possibly because of their own failure and inadequacies.

Jane

You are getting confused here. Paedophilia is a desire, not an action. A paedophile is merely a person who is sexually atracted to children. I'm not sure you can hold that against them, it isn't necesarily their choice.

What is wrong is for them to act on that desire--that takes advantage of and scars children.

Get your terminology right.