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

Hi, Matholwch! ON the weekend I went hunting for some statistics on paedophilia and priests - I knew they'd come in handy! I copied the following to Wordpad (or whatever it's called) and I'm posting these stats because I am interested in the assertion from the 3rd source about how the media want to denigrate Catholicism... in the USA where the Catholic church consistently opposes war and capital punishment, it seems their motive is clear to me!

<<2) It is not just Roman Catholic clergy who are involved in this. For example the Episcopal Church in the US has the same proportion of child sex scandals as the Catholic ...

In Church terms we cannot just see this problem as a Roman Catholic problem which would be cured if the Church allowed its priests to marry. This is a problem that is deeply rooted in our society. In order for the church to deal with this issue we need to understand it and we need to try and avoid facile and simplistic explanations and solutions.

From another site.
...the case that in Britain the government believes that there are one million potential paedophiles and in the US around 4% of the population are thought to be a danger.

Is it the case that the majority of child abusers are priests, teachers, Boy Scout leaders and other adults who work with children? No. The vast majority of abuse cases occur within the home. 50% of abused children are abused by one or both of their parents. Less than one third of abuse cases occur outside the home.

What causes paedophilia? Perhaps it is the case that those who abuse have themselves been abused. This is true in one third of cases but that still leaves a large majority who do not fit into that explanation. Some psychiatrists have wanted to argue that paedophilia is a brain disease - in fact it is listed as an illness in most psychiatric manuals. Other scientists have suggested that chromosal abnormalities or psychological problems during puberty are responsible.

Yet another site:
...arising from the CTV program Open Mike with Mike Bullard which was aired last April. During that program, Mr. Bullard ridiculed Catholic priests implying they are particularly prone to paedophilia. (Less than 1% of Catholic priests have been involved in homosexual acts with adolescents, i.e. this interest is homosexuality not paedophilia - a significant fact that homosexuals do not like to acknowledge.) In fact, only 0.7% of the 46,000 Catholic priests in the US have been found guilty of such criminal behaviour. Yet this has been blown all out of proportion by the media, along with some others who wish to destroy the credibility of the Catholic Church so as to remove its voice from the public arena. Such enemies have exploited with unbridled enthusiasm this current difficulty of the Catholic Church in the US in regard to this small number of wayward priests. The media have chosen to completely ignore the dedication, devotion and services to humanity exhibited by over 99% of Catholic priests in the US. In short, in attacking the Christian faith by way of the Catholic Church, the media, both in the US and Canada, exhibit no limits to their low standards. <<

Higgs -

The problem with you argument, I think, is that man is by no means a machine. Machines do not make decisions on their own, yet. Perhaps when we create artificial intelligence, they will, but then they become less a machine and more a person.

Man was given the right to make decisions for him/herself. That;s what free will is. But in accepting free will, we also accept responsibility for our actions.

As for someone who is trained since childhood, they too have free will. They have the free will to leave at any time, but then again, someone may try and stop them. The have the free will to ignore what the teacher says, and hold an internal rebellion. They have the choice to accept what the teacher says, and then to think on it for good and bad. There are always, always choices that can be made.

>>If this is the case, it is hard to see why a creator wishing for a perfect creation with free will does not create such a being able to exercise free will except where self damage may occur.<<

In this case, then free will is eliminated. They have had an option removed, and no amount of willingness can result in that option being obtained. In this, it's all or nothing.

The alternative seems to be the situation of the engineer that knowingly and deliberately creates a machine that can damage itself, then throws a strop when it happens.

>>The difficuly was that this 'perfect' being, Eve, was open to temptation (is this not a weakness, a flaw?).<<

Again, it is one of the facets of free will. If Eve had resisted tempation, that would have been a mighty display of personal strenght, to have obeyed not because she had to, but because she wanted to. Instead, she decides on the opposite. You see how it can work?
>>So it would appear almost inevitable that Satan, the tempter and deceiver, would eventually succeed in tempting her.<<

Not nessassarily (sp?). We are all temped as well. Theft, murder, slander, etc. I know a good deal of people who have the skill and knowledge to steal a CD, but do not. And, more than likely, will never do so. It is possible to resist temptation, for an indefinite period.

Now, as for who is responsible for Eve? Well, there's Eve for one, and Satan for the other. Eve for actually breaking the law, and Satan for persuading her to do so.

...

A though occured to me just now. Shouldn't Eve be considered the Holy Mother? Dunno...

<(((><

Della
Sorry that should read; am I more compassionate than that Abrahamic God of Biblical revenges.
and the answer to the original would be; Yes I can be as compassionate as God

Door. I doubt that 'perfect logic' would involve the use of 'ancestors' (twice!) where 'descendants' is intended!

You state the logical version of evolutionary theory. No observation could show this to be false, so it isn't scientific. To become scientific, we need to put the knife in between the two uses of 'better' in the sentence 'What changes for the better survives better (and its descendants)'. These 'better' words have to be unpacked in ways that make it possible that some observation might show that they don't always occur together. It does sometimes happen that way due to relatively sudden changes in the environment. Reflect on the eventual fate of the dinosaurs.

Hi Myst

,,,>^..^<,,, is a cat peeping over a wall, at your fish, yum!

I think overall we're getting circular here. It happens frequently between me and the various christians I have debated with in this forum. Probably my fault, so I apologise.

I believe that we need to get something straight though. I am druid. I do not believe in your God, nor most of the philosophies he espouses. I need neither his forgiveness nor your compassion. Though it is good of you to offer it . Please spend your energies on those who will listen, for I am well past redemption.

What I have been trying to invoke in you is reflection. Do not accept everything you read until you understand the context in which was written and the effects that it has had.

The best christians that I have met have been those who have studied a wide range of faiths and spiritual paths and returned to their own with renewed purpose. These people are wise and tolerant. Those that have never lifted their eyes from the Bible tend to be narrow-minded, bigoted and callous.

Della is a good example of the former type, but to many of the latter type she would probably be shunned as a heretic.

If you follow this advice you would understand that some of what you say so boldly can be seen as deeply flawed and offensive to those of other spiritual paths, and does your faith a disservice. For instance:

"The creatures matter little to me in comparison to the souls of the living".

A direct reflection of the christian dogma of human dominance. To a druid this is as close to blasphemy as it gets (don't worry I am not offended). To us every living thing is invested with the divine spirit. Many places are invested with this spirit also. We do not see these spirits as having less value than the human one and are all deserving of respect and compassion.

A concentration only on the needs and desires of the human species group is to remove us from the context of the planet as a whole. This humanocentric viewpoint, reinforced by the Abrahamic religions, is responsible for practically everything that is wrong with it now. We exploit, we destroy, we pour disrespect and poisons into every crevice of the earth.

Druidry, along with many other 'native' or earth-based spiritualities, works to heal this damage. To walk the earth as stewards, not masters. One way in which we do this is to challenge the philosophies that promote this destruction, and so I stand here before you now.

So you can see I do not really believe I shall ever stand beneath Sulphur Outfall No4. My spirit will go on, from life to life, learning, growing, deepening in its capacity for compassion, working to heal the pain we have wrought.

My main argument with christianity always comes back to the theology of salvation. The vast majority of christians cling to this as their solution to the pain and chaos of this world. Well chaps, "I'm alright jack" may work for you, but we druids (and others) will not wait for your salvation and a new earth, we shall work for paradise on earth for our grandchildren now.

Hope, love and purpose,
Matholwch /|\.

Oh dear
More biblical sayings to prove or disprove a particular point. Get ready for the other biblical quotes that will contradict the above

Math you know as well as I do that reading any book will give the reader what he/she wants to hear, and the bible is really good for this. If we have a mind set before we even approach the written word, and the mind is closed to any other ideas, we will only search for those words that give us validation of our already set thoughts and ignore /deny anything else. It's the human condition to be blinded to uncomfortable truths.
Myst of course there is only benefit in goodness, I don't need to be told the ten commandments of decent behavior, to me they are perfectly obvious as they must be to most humans on reflection.
But what we are trying to tell you, is that goodness is not the exclusive position of the Christian only.
Can you not see that anyone listening to you, that you are trying to 'save' only has to look at the behavior of most powerful Christian on the planet to be disabused of any special relationship one group has with God over another.
what absolute misery a religious group can cause in the world by being fundamental enough to believe that their way of being in the world is the correct and only way and that they alone can approach the heaven of their imaginations.
Do you honestly believe that only those baptised into the christian faith are the only humans capable of good and love and peace? Because if you do it is a wrong thought. Believing that you can give another person salvation through words is often a quick road to meglamania. you are not here to 'save' Math. No honestly he doesn't need saving and even if he did, he can only save himself.

Della
"only 0.7% of the 46,000 Catholic priests "
Is still too many.

But, Moth. If we're to accept Della's figures, it's considerably lower than the rate in the general population!

Hi Della .

Back to paedophilia again? Thanks for the data, but my point wasn't "how terrible the priests are". I am well aware of the statistics and how if we take them in context the incidence of predatory priests is no better or worse than in many other walks of life.

One of the things that has disappointed Catholics the world over (and as most of my family are Catholic we have debated this endlessly) has been the reaction of the Church authorities when such transgressions have been detected. For decades the reaction has varied from simple disbelief of the victims (even to the extent of accusing them of making it up and shunning them when they persist) to the dangerously naieve belief that giving the transgressors absolution and moving them to another parish or position within the church will solve the matter. In all these reactions they have tried their damndedest to conceal what has been happening, and so the culture of secrecy and abuse has been allowed to fester and grow.

Forgiveness is insufficient. There is an implicit duty of care in the relationship between priest (of any religion) and believer. In their arrogance and naievity the Church authorities abrogated this duty and so failed their charges utterly.

Society looks to such organisations as the Church to give the lead in matters ethical, moral and spiritual. What message has been given out by this failure?

The danger for the christian churches though is far more than a simple loss of faith. The entire doctrine of forgiveness, absolution of sins and salvation is brought into question. For if by giving absolution you allow evil to grow, what use is it?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Toxx
The general population do not, as a whole, adopt a position(way of life?) that insinuates trust as much as the priesthood, perhaps.

Math -

Sorry about the cat... dunno, saw lizard in there somehow. Confused the > < bits for those frills like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or something.

>>I believe that we need to get something straight though. I am druid. I do not believe in your God, nor most of the philosophies he espouses. I need neither his forgiveness nor your compassion. Though it is good of you to offer it. Please spend your energies on those who will listen, for I am well past redemption.<<

I know that you don't believe in my God. But, even if I cannot save you, I would at least prove to you that my God is not evil, cruel, or anything like that. Satan takes care of that.


>>The best christians that I have met have been those who have studied a wide range of faiths and spiritual paths and returned to their own with renewed purpose. These people are wise and tolerant. Those that have never lifted their eyes from the Bible tend to be narrow-minded, bigoted and callous.<<

I have looked away, for a while. I admit, I have little study of other beliefs, but I am not ignorant of them. I grew up learning of things that most Christian families would not teach. Mum's a comparitive religion minor among other things...

I would apologise then for my human-centered views. True, I'm not all wild about deforestation, but nor am I too concerned with not enjoying chicken every so often. I am, still, more concerned with the salvation of humans, over the well being of creatures.

Christianity believes that this world is not our final place of rest. That Christ will come one day, and it all shall end there. That's why I am concerned with people. I don't believe that Christianity promotes distruction of the environment. It does not forbid it, but then again, it doesn't forbid sticking your hand in the electrical outlet either. It's good common sense to me.

Heck, my intervaristy Christian group shares an office with an environmental protection agency. We get along fine, even though the posters are a bit much at times.

Even still, Math, I would rest at ease if I knew that when I died, and this world came to an end, you'd be with the Father in happiness. And I pray that it may one day come to that, if not by me, then by someone.

Moth -
Wow. Your names are really close, aren't they? Just noticed that...

>>Do you honestly believe that only those baptised into the christian faith are the only humans capable of good and love and peace? Because if you do it is a wrong thought. Believing that you can give another person salvation through words is often a quick road to meglamania. you are not here to 'save' Math. No honestly he doesn't need saving and even if he did, he can only save himself.<<

Of course not! I know a good deal of non-Christians whom I am very proud to be able to call my freinds. Christianity does not = good. I know some Christians that I am ashamed to know at all.

I cannot save through words, and no man can save himself, just as a drowning person cannot be saved by words alone, or save himself. I learned that when I lost my faith. I tried hard to find God within me, without ever realizing it, and no matter how hard I looked, I found nothing but my own failures, doubts, and worries.
I had to make myself look outside my own self, to stop refusing the help He was trying to give. Had to stop my own arrogence that I could do whatever I needed, on my own. A arrogance that a lot of people carry without ever knowing it, and one I still lapse into far too often for my own tastes.

<(((><

Myst

"Of course not! I know a good deal of non-Christians whom I am very proud to be able to call my freinds. Christianity does not = good. I know some Christians that I am ashamed to know at all. "

This is the crux of the debate on this matter I think.
Will those good non christians be heaven bound if unconverted and will those evil doing Christians get a free pass?

Myst

"Of course not! I know a good deal of non-Christians whom I am very proud to be able to call my freinds. Christianity does not = good. I know some Christians that I am ashamed to know at all. "

This is the crux of the debate on this matter I think.
Will those good non christians be heaven bound if unconverted and will those evil doing Christians get a free pass?

The dodgiest ones do, I fear. Staff at children's homes etc. The worst offenders live in the same house as the kid. Guess that insinuates a fair bit of trust.

Agreed toxx, but still think that priesthood considered even more trustworthy as per Maths words.
Plus nowaday all child workers have to be screened (supposed ) I don't think this applies to religious orders yet does it? We still have to trust that, since they selected to serve their God, they'd be following the rules. A teacher. careworker, cub scout, etc don't seem to have the full supposed life style mission of the priest. It's a job for them, for the priest it's supposed to be more than that perhaps.

Moth -

Yes. The un-believers will not go to Heaven, and the believers will. Now, you're going to say,

"How is it fair that good people burn while evil do not?"

No matter how good you are, your good deeds cannot erase your sins. They are there, one way or the other. Good deeds are very good (hense the name,) but they cannot save anyone. Only accepting Christ's forgiveness can do that.

As for the wicked, if they are truly Christian, I doubt they'll be stealing, raping, and killing. If they are, then we need to do something about it. They should pay the penalties for their crimes, here on earth, and be taught what is right.

There isn't a single person in history that I would wish Hell upon. Not Hitler, not Stalin, not anyone. No matter how bad they were in life, the suffering they caused will be a candle to the sun compared to what Hell would be.

I hope and wish you feel the same way.

<(((><

Mystrunner

I'm afraid your statistics are wrong. I recommend you spend less time reading tabloid newspapers and crackpot puritan pamphlets.

I'm getting quite insulting now aren't I? You see that's what a person does when they have to argue a point to somebody (or a number of people) who absolutely won't believe the truth when it's write in front of their eyes. No, that's not me. Your God is not right in front of my eyes, or any other part of my anatomy. He is in your head.

Actually, it is fairly likely that a self-replicating mutating molecule could come into existence. In the chemical soup of the Precambrian world, with billions of reactions taking place over the surface of the globe over about a billion years before something classified as life appeared, it is quite likely that the DNA molecule or its RNA ancestor was created in several places at several different times.

When you've finished persuading yourself that I'm wrong and misguided and Satanic and whatever else garbage you pour into your own head, you might want to read "Unweaving the Rainbow" or "River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins. He wrote some other books too, but they might be a bit complicated for you.

(Sorry about the tone folks, I know it's not nice on a forum but ignorance is bliss and that makes enlightenment a ruddy pain in my aristotle.)

> The problem with you argument, I think, is that man is by no means
> a machine. Machines do not make decisions on their own, yet.

Sorry, did I miss out the crux of the argument, that it seemed to me that 'free will' was the significant difference in this context?

> Man was given the right to make decisions for him/herself. That;s
> what free will is. But in accepting free will, we also accept
> responsibility for our actions.

That looks like a logic error... To 'accept' free will, we would need to be free to make the choice of accepting or rejecting. How could we accept or reject something *before* we had free will? It seems clear to me that we must have been given free will, i.e. it was mandatory, we had no choice. Must we then take responsibility for our built-in frailty?

Now if, as you imply, free will is absolute (any restriction whatsoever eliminates free will), and we all have free will, we must all be equally responsible for our actions, yet this is clearly not the case. As humans, we are not all equal.

For example, a person who is mentally damaged, e.g. through genetics, illness, or inappropriate cultural programming is not, in a fair society, held equally morally responsible for their actions as an undamaged person. Yet they have free will, don't they? Or do they? They can make *some* free choices - is that free will? If it is, should they be held responsible for *all* their actions?

I would also argue that a person's free will may be constrained in some way; take, for example, a claustrophobic. They have the physical capacity to enter a lift, but for some, the action is almost impossible. Would you seriously hold that they are as free to enter as you, when they evidently find it enormously more difficult? And if, for some reason, they were *required* to do so, but found they could not, should they be held equally culpable as someone who simply decided not to do as instructed?

I would also suggest a further question: does free will *necessarily* imply moral responsibility? A fault line can be responsible for an earthquake, and a damaged person can be responsible for breaking a moral code through free choice. Whether the damaged infractor is held morally responsible is often considered to depend on whether they were fully aware that their actions were were in breach of that moral code.

However, this can be arguable, such as in the contentious case of the recently executed killer of an abortion doctor. Some argue he was doing Gods work, some that he was an evil murderer, some that he was a sick man who didn't understand what he was doing (i.e. not morally responsible).

The judgement appears to depend upon which moral code the observer subscribes to, and whether the action was viewed as the result of some mental damage or illness that negated moral responsibility. Indeed, many would further argue that the action itself is unquestionable proof of some mental damage or illness that negates moral responsibility...

This line of argument could lead to the suggestion that Eve's action in succumbing to temptation was evidence of a flaw in her character, she was self-evidently not perfect - the unfortunate woman could resist everything but that temptation. Can she then be blamed for this weakness? (rhetorical).

These arguments are all really just exercises to point out the multiple shades of grey that appear when you analyse the sort of black and white, all or nothing, assertions you've been making.

I call them just exercises, because there is some good evidence (and a rational anaysis supports it) that 'free will' as commonly understood, is a convenient (sub or preconscious) construct we use to explain our actions after the fact. Of course, we can suggest that we have consciously made a decision to act before acting, but evidence shows that the intent (the decision to act) arises *before* we become conscious of it, i.e. the decision making is a sub or preconscious process.

Naturally, it is a disturbing thought, that we are not really in conscious control of our actions, but bear in mind that we are not consciously aware of the vast majority of activity in our heads, and the activities that make up our personalities are mostly subconscious. For example, when you talk, you generally become aware of what you are saying as it emerges. The gaffs and slips of everyday conversation testify to this. Do you consciously construct the witty comeback or quip, or does it burst out from some preconscious process?

Sorry about the whole descendant - ancestor thing, i'm always doing that. Go easy on me, I'm still young.

No, it can't be supported by observation, other than the observation that life exists, that snythesizing mutating molecules can be produced in the laboratory (they don't interbreed though, so they haven't truly properly created life yet) and that we are built of DNA, which is supportive evidence because it provides a means by which evolution can happen, and must really, if you actually understand evolution, which too many people don't. It's a tautology really - on the level of DNA, that which survives survives.

On the other hand, we could believe that there is a lovely big spirit watching out for us who created everything in six days - or was that a metaphor? Or maybe he didn't create stuff, he just set it in motion? Or maybe he just sparked the Big Bang? Or maybe he's just there and doesn't have any influence?

Or maybe he doesn't exist, perhaps, just possibly????????

I couldn't agree with you more. This topic is very debateable across the internet and has been 'wrapped off' with various different conclusions. Generally; when it all comes down to the main point there are three different types of people:

1. The people who think the idea of a God is obsurd.
2. The people who think the People who think 'The idea of God is obsurd' are obsurd.
3. And the people who really couldn't care at all.

Add it all up and you get DEAD neutrality. That isn't any favor for a God or not - thats in favor of ANY arguement of this kind.