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

Hello, A. Dent. (Jeff). Your essay is very interesting, as is your theory, and it has, I believe, quite a lot of validity.

is there such a thing as heritical? i have always though jesus taught in stories so you think about how it applies rather than simply following. then again as a catholic that is probably quite a heritical point of view

Heathen Sceptic - I have noticed that many ex-Christians (as you have said you are) have left over the issue of sex. An example would be a man called Gerrard someone who wrote a book, an 'expose' of Pat Robertson, and who said in the course of the long book, that he'd been fired by Robertson from CBN because of his (Gerrard's) affair with a secretary. (He was married at the time.) So, Gerrard left, married someone completely different from either woman, and became a Buddhist/Jew!
As I've said, there is statistical reason to believe that the 'vast' instance of paedophilia in the church (especially the Catholic church) is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree for what can only be political reasons.

I am with you there, toxxin...

I gather that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge theorised 'punctuated equilibrium'. Roadkill, were they wrong? I have read Gould quite recently,but I might not be up with the current play...

That's because I believe in reincarnation and universal salvation, fathead. (I don't feel comfortable calling you that, but *you* chose it!)
Some churches therefore would regard me as not being a proper Christian. I do think that most churches have stuck with what was taught, and that neither the churches nor the Bible have wandered as far away from original Christianity as some people think. But nevertheless, I think some things have got covered up over the millennia. (Another one of my heretical views is that the Old Testament is much less relevant to Christianity than many take it to be. Almost not at all, is my view!)

' IMO Christianity can't cope with sex, period.'

I'm not sure what you mean. I can't cope with sex because I have abnormally low libido, and even when that's operating at abnormally high levels (for me) I still find the concept intellectually disgusting, equally so for heterosexual or homosexual intercourse. (Does that make me bisexual? ) But what are you trying to say about Christianity? Simply that sex undermines the power it [a church] has on people as a powerful, uncontrollable force which is naturally aligned to compell people to act contrary to Christian moral doctrines? If so, I wouldn't say so much that Christianity can't cope with sex as that Christian ethics strikes an immediate disharmony with natural impulses.

'The logical objection to homosexuality (voiced at one point by Insight, but also heard recently on R4 interviews with African clerics) is that it can't be reproductive. But, as I've said previously, if that is the argument, then every Christian Church would have to view any sex which is *not* designed to produce a baby as perverse, which the Anglican Church does not do.'

I agree, what you call the 'logical' position is actually an extremely invasive, illogical argument. For example, if a man or woman is infertile, should they thus be celibate also? Is oral sex licit? Is it right to strive for female orgasm for sexual pleasure, or is sex simply a case of 'biff, bang, thank you ma'am?' Or can Christians only experience sexual pleasure insofar as it culminates in direct ejaculation of sperm into the vagina? etc. The arguments are endless, impossible to resolve and above all, constitute a breach of privacy in an intensely personal event.

Several churches - the Catholic church not included - make it clear that it is not non-reproductive sex, but unbiblical sex which is disallowed, meaning simply adultery. Of course, this simply declares homosexual coition, for example, to be sinful by definition, a paragon example of begging the question. No reasons are given other than 'we are told not to.' This means, logically, that their morals cannot be forced upon others by virtue of logic, but because they arrogantly consider their faith superior to the exclusion of all else - seeking to keep others in dominion.

Thus my position, that Christians be allowed to practise their own moral laws, but not to compell others to follow suit.

'I have a problem with the entire Christian view of sex.'

Is that including the position taken by some modern Christian churches, which believe homosexual marriage should be permitted, spiritually and legally? I can see the general objection, but not always the specific.

'This sin appears to take precendence over the sin of usery and other perverse applications of wealth and power, yet, from memory, these were far more heavily condemned by the founder of Christianity. This may be because sex is so uncontrollable (as a generalisation) a drive that it threatens those in power, whether in government or in the Church, as it is ultimately subversive and can (and does) breed rebellion and subversion.'

Or perhaps because now that the Christian stranglehold on morality has broken down to an extent, sexual sins are far more rampant?

'Those in power, on the other hand, indulge their sexual gratification regardless of their own rules, and cover up thier acts. This can be seen by the unhappy prevalence and history of paedophilia within all branches of the Church.'

I have heard of paedophilia mainly with respect to the Catholic and Anglican churches, so I doubt you can simply make such a sweeping statement unless you mean the Catholic Church, for example. Can you recall a JW paedophile? I can't, though I bet they're not too common. Regardless, paedophiles exist in the Boy Scouts, schools, GP practices and in almost any other organisation in which impressionable, maleable children come into contact with adult leaders. So I wonder, what consequence does your statement have? At least, in the context of being a specific instance of a general problem?

I rather enjoy debating with you, Heathen. I'm sure you'll come up with some useful rebuttals.

- Jordan

>>in almost any other organisation in which impressionable, maleable children come into contact with adult leaders.<<
Here in NZ recently, we have had many cases involving school teachers - it's been a veritable epidemic!
Also, something I mentioned back in September, but no one commented. There was a case in Christchurch, where a guy was convicted of fraud and required to repay tens of thousands of $$ he had received as compensation for his childhood abuse by a 'pedophile priest'. (He'd invented the whole story. The church is far *too* willing to say to people like him "Oh, we'll take your word for it, it must have happened if you say so, it would be insensitive to investigate." and they pay out! Schools, Scout groups etc insist on harsh interrogation and sometimes years before they acknowldge the event, especially if the complainants are girls. That's the opposite of what many opponents of Christianity *think* happens...

Della, I remember the case in New Zealand of that man who made false claims of sexual abuse. Apparently, he wasn't even at the particular school during the years that he alleged the abuse took place. That was an example of someone attempting to jump on the band-wagon and take advantage of all the reported cases of sexual abuse by preists and monks.

There's no doubt that there has been a spate of cases of sexual abuse by preists, but it in no way reflects on christianity. The responsibility is mostly that of the catholic church and it's mostly their policy of enforced celibacy for preists that's to blame. The catholic church is almost the only christian church that enforces this rule and while sex remaind something aloof, mysterious and sinful for these preists, it only heightens the temptation.

Allow preists to marry and the instances of sexual abuse will be greatly reduced overnight.

Jordan, in the main, I agree with you. Here's an odd thing though: nobody would ever dream of 'coming out' as a paedophile. Hence there is no question of whether to ordain paedophiles. This is what happens when things are criminalised. Yet I can see no alternative in this case.

toxx

Allowing priests to marry wouldn't reduce paedophilia as paedophiles seek jobs that allow them contact with children. It would probably reduce demand for prostitutes and hypocrisy among the non-paedophile majority of priests. Interestingly 1 previous (ab)user of accusations of paedophilia against the Catholic church was Hitler.

"paedophiles seek jobs that allow them contact with children."

Blackberry, that's a very good point. I suppose the answer, then, comes down to identifying the root causes of paedophilia. I don't think anyone's ever come close to finding a cure for it.

The nearest to a root cause anyone has ever come up with is that victims of abuse are more likely than others to become abusers themselves but most don't and some paedophiles were never abused as children themselves. In the U.K. the worst child abuse cases were in state run childrens homes. However there have also been some scare stories, usually involving Satanic abuse.

Toxx
vibration of quantum consciousness. The cause of setting in motion.
We could suggest that the biblical 'Word' of God is just that, a sound which is vibration which sets atoms in motion.
Noggin
Yes energy does equal energy
A Hundred years isn't too long is it?
this is the first time I've come across the string theory. Read it in a book today, with oddly the main character called Moth!

The original singularity that is quantum consciousness is dense/compressed energy. That energy is now within matter and less compressesd/dense. That is why I've said previously that everything is built of consciousness (although the word has awkward connotations)

'Here's an odd thing though: nobody would ever dream of 'coming out' as a paedophile. Hence there is no question of whether to ordain paedophiles. This is what happens when things are criminalised. Yet I can see no alternative in this case.'

And I have to agree, it is an odd thing. The problem with paedophilia, as distinct from homosexuality, is that expression of the former inevitably damages individuals who are incapable of informed consent. Thus, while I'm willing to admit paedophilia is a natural state for a man to be in, I have no choice but to insist paedophiles must, of necessity, choose between selfishly hurting innocent children or substitute their object of desire for something less delicate.

I am all in favour of paedophiles 'coming out' - as a step to therapy. Unfortunately, this therapy may be just as unsuccessful as attempts to 'cure' homosexuals, but I imagine (or rather, hope) that the psychological component of paedophilia is more significant than any genetic influences - I won't compromise on my position if this is not the case, I simply think it would make it easier to solve the problem.

And regardless of how natural the condition is, it is one that excels in its potential to cause hurt and suffering, and which must therefore be limited and, if possible, eliminated.

I wonder what research has been carried out into the root causes of paedophilia?

- Jordan

Holy smokes! Three pages of postings since I went to bed last night!

Jordan
I'm more convinced that paedophilia is a result of dysfunctional sexual lessons learnt at an early age than a dysfunctional gene.
it could equate with any sexual obsession diverted to the inappropriate by peculiar circumstance. Like fetishs (or is that festishi?)
If that is so, then there might be help for the 'afflicted'. I don't believe a gene for paedophila has been detected, but it has for homosexuality.
As said, I'm writing dissertation on Lolita for my MA

toxxin,

<>

Okay, that makes sense. I think the problem was the word 'for'. What I meant by saying a god could exist for someone was not that the person was the god's purpose, but that personally (for that person) their god exists.



Noggin,

<>


(both of you)

az

hi Jordan,

I should imagine that anyone 'coming out' as a paedophile would already be seeking help. But it's kind of like 'coming out' as a spouse beater or a violent sociopath. The behaviour is seen as criminal, and I believe it has to be. And although the impulse to behave is not criminal I think a lot of people have a hard time seeing the difference, especially as many paedophiles are not capable of controlling themselves, or do not bother to. I personally think without treatment paedophiles are walking timebombs. But I also don't think it's good if they feel too much shame or fear to 'come out' and seek help.

I'm inclined to agree with Moth that the root cause of paedophilia is conditioning and not genetic.

btw Moth, it is 'fetishes' but I think I prefer 'fetishi'.

az

Cat. There is also the fact that most paedophiles are family men, with a preponderance of step-fathers. Many others are boys too young to be priests.

toxx