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

<>

I haven't heard the phrase and I'm afraid I don't really understand your first sentence.

I don't see how restricting sex to marital or religious contexts makes it less free of emotional pain or somehow more 'acceptable'. There are plenty of dead marriages and abusive marriages. And often restrictions that religions place on sex are, frankly, quite unnatural. (imho)

It isn't having sex outside of marriage that causes pain. It's people being insensitive and unloving. Marriage doesn't magically change people into being sensitive and loving, especially if people end up feeling forced into marriage so that they can finally have sex.

I think that deliberate total abstinence from any natural function tends to create neuroses and usually the absense of one thing is overcompensated for by obsession of another thing or things.

az

Hi maniacal vixen

I thought someone ought to reply to this, and who better than me, a 'recovering catholic' ?

The first thing to say is that none of us in the UK have seen it yet, thought I fully intend to when it is released.

Despite that I have observed several interviews with both Mel and his star. I have also watched the furore generated by both Jewish and Christian 'fundamentalists' over the whole affair. I have also seen various clips and stills.

My first thought is if you were going to do this you would strive to make it as historically accurate as possible to prevent this from detracting from your central theme. So let's examine what we have seen so far of the 'accuracy':

1. The cross. It has never been recorded that the Romans ever made condemned prisoners carry an entire cross some miles to their place of execution. The gallows were prepared ahead of time by slaves or legionary punishment duties.
2. The cross again. I have worked quite a bit on farms and this included lifting and carrying wooden beams. Unless the cross depicted in this film was made of Balsa it is highly unlikely that even a fit young palestinian jew could easily lift it, never mind carry it for more than a few yards. In the Philipines where young men voluntarily undergo crucifixion to prove their devotion, they rarely process with it for more than a hundred yards before their friends have to carry it as a group.
3. The Roman Soldiers. The Lorica Segmentata armour shown was rarely worn except during drill and battle. To wear it, and the woollen underclothes that padded it out, whilst on crowd control duty in the heat of a palestinian spring (75-80 degrees F) would have been stupid, and the Roman Army was not stupid.
4. Scourging. The physical shock and blood/fluid loss of a scourging of the nature the film attempts to portray would have made Jesus unconscious, not ready to carry a cross up a steep hill. Roman Army records indicate that a scourged soldier should be allowed to rest in bed for up to three days and then be put on light duties for a further five. And Roman Soldiers were remarkably tough.
5. The use of Latin and Aramaic. Oh dear, big boo-boo. The peoples of central and coastal Judaea, especially amongst the urban middle classes depicted in the film, would have used Greek as their lingua franca. Aramaic was generally only used in a religious context in the home and temple. The Romans would have spoken Latin amongst themselves but Greek when dealing with Judaeans.

The reaction of the Jewish community is not really against the 'facts' of the betrayal, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. They are concerned that it will reinvoke the blood libel. After all, everyone but the occupying Roman Forces in Judaea was jewish, so some of them were involved.

My real concern is the motivation for making this film and the evangelical christian reaction to it. Mel has pronounced some pretty extreme views in his interviews about the film and many evangelical churches are supporting its graphic depiction of violence and suffering. Children are being taken to see it to shock them into compliance with the beliefs of their elders.

Sinister stuff.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi lemon, lots of advice for you. Thanks for livening the thread up.

I personally can see nothing wrong with abstaining from sex as having sex holds roughly equal number and equal intensity of both pros and cons.

Leaving the medical considerations aside, my two penneth is that abstining can leave you free of distraction but sex is the the best distraction. (Well if you can find a good partner or partners)

Its your life, good luck with your choices.

one love

Sinister stuff? Oh, spare us, Matholwch! The White House (supposedly) deciding against incursions into Syria and Richard Perle throwing a tanty and quitting the National Defense Board, that's sinister stuff. Bush'n'Blair spying on deliberations of 'swing voters' at the UN Security Council, that's sinister stuff. Mel Gibson's movie is a movie, one I don't expect will be particularly popular in the long term.
If you know your Bible (and you claim to) you'll know Jesus didn't carry the cross. He carried part of it, part of the way. Then the Romans co-opted a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, reputedly a black man, as a matter of interest...
<>
Not so at all. Jerusalem was pretty cosmopolitan, than as now, and you can't have it both ways. Either they were locals and spoke Aramaic, or they spoke Greek, and many were foreigners.
As Mel Gibson has said, his view is that *all of us* are responsible, obviously not in any direct or obvious way.
<>
No, they're not. At least not in NZ, where (as I explained before) it has an R16 rating, or in Australia where it's an R13, or equivalent. I am told by my (just turned) 17 year old that anyone of 13 and above is no longer a child. That aside, what makes you think that seeing that particular piece of ultra-violence will "shock" anyone "into compliance with the beliefs of" her "elders"?

Sherlock Holmes

Isnt he a fictional character Della?


As for Ghandi I dont know what you're talking about. Were there rumours about his sexuality, perhaps they're as accurate as what you belived about Hypatia.


One thing he did say is this;
"I do not subscribe to the superstition that everything is good because it is ancient".

I tend to take that view on everything and having seen marriages work wonderfully for some while for others being a horrible and violent prison I could never be so quick as you always seem to be to push a positive view of tradittional models for adult human relationships.

one love

'things taste the way they do for a reason, physiological or psychological, and deliberately eating food that tastes bland or unpleasant probably means missing out on nutrition.'

I wonder if plants would agree, and Chef's and other cooks might wonder why they bother to use spices.

From the plants point of view having a nice taste is 1) a bad idea for stems and leaves etc. 2) a good idea for fruits. Although it sounds a bit silly you could claim that an apple wants to be eaten, because that means the seeds get sent well away from the parent tree and there is less chance of unhealthy interbreeding through cross polination.

A plant therefore would wish to entice the taste buds of animals in the easiest way possible, this usualy mean's sugar and in the case of fruit, this is fructose, prehaps the simplest and most easily absorbed naturaly occuring sugar.

The right spices can make even the most bland food palatable, a common criticism of english food by may asian freinds is that it is very bland indeed. However when I introduced them to what I regard as the correct use of English Mustard, they were less critical, yet there is vertualy no connection between nutrition and Mustard, the amounts used (Even my liberal amounts) provides negligable nutritional value, the bland bits, carrots beef roast potatoes, ect provide all the nutrition.

I don't know why but that all sounds like a very critical response, I think it might be that the species is tuned in to seek out appropriate nutrition, but Humans are (as I probably say more often than I need to) feindishly complicated, the addition of this huge brain (As compared to body weight etc) means that we respond to our environment in ways that can bypass instinct with consumate ease. We seem to be able to develop responses to our environment that go way beyond instinct, and I believe it may well be an impossible task to peel away all those layers of learning to reach the bed rock of instinct. Even if we were able to do so I wonder if we would necisarily find what we expect or hope.

A particularly taxing idea from anthropology at the moment concers the 'Demonic Male' hypothosis. I find it hard to accept that the instinct of Men might be to dominate groups through agression and fear, but there is anthropological evidence that this might be true. History
supports it as well. Even if it is an accurate hypothosis, clearly non-violent men have been influential in history. Eg Jesus, Buddah, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, so the addition of this big brain of ours may have helped us step beyond our instincts in a helpful way.

Logically this stepping beyond is responsible for lots of wonderful human inventions, art Music Poetry religion politics strategic planning global thermonuclear war ect some good some bad. In the context of food it has given us fish and chips, pasta, Pizza, curry and chicken fried rice to name but a few. All of verying nutritional value. For me it is being aware of the impact of what I am eating is having on me which influences what I eat next. After too many Pizza's I tend to feel bloated, Cheese toasties tend to make me notice my dreams, curry sometimes sends me to the smallest room the next day, Shreddies for breakfast tend to stop me wanting anything else for the rest of the day.

It all brings me back to the individual, what works for me works for me what works for you works for you, it is easier to wonder about what others do or dont in lots of different areas, it is very difficult to say this is so or that is so for all of us.

which might have made a significant difference to a number of children, the way Children's Homes are run and the success of the Roman Catholic Church.

Stage Direction,

Strontium Dog Jumps up and dowm waving hands about, enthusiastically trying to indicate his agreement, but struggling to find words adequate to the task, gives up and falls over exhausted, hoping this outburst will do the trick.

Della the Cat Woman: So I did that thing.

Unmarried and uncommitted sex can be recreation for one partner, and something else for the other - and she has to conceal her feelings, and her hurt and sometimes hatred, when the boy she hoped would come to care for her, says something like "oh, you silly cow, it was just physical." I would venture to suggest that an experience like that has been had at least once by every girl and some boys, born in the 20th century!

The difficulty here as I see it is that in the majority of cases I think this is probably true. BUT... There are those for whom the emotional context is different, I and some of my partners have had perfectly adequate recreational sex, the emotional involvement being fundamentaly about having fun and a laugh without the stress and tension that 'lifetime' committment involved, at a time when this was not what either of us wanted. There was if you will a contract, a conversation which led to the recreation in which our agendas were clearly stated. (Sounds like a legal conversation which it wasn't: more like, I'm looking for... what do you like?) I am not aware of any difficult experiences the majority of these partners may have had, though I wouldn't exclude the possibility. However one was complicated and as soon as I realised it the relationship ended as from my point of view something more than the 'contract' was being asked for.

With others the 'contract' has been different and I am now married and the contract is eclusive and committed.

From my point of view my approach was to be direct and honest as I could be about where I was at at the time and to seek the same from the people I was with. Where it wasn't present I defered, male freinds often needled me for passing up when someone was putting out, female freinds questioned why I was afraid of committment.

This narrative is presented to suggest that there are different approaches and possibilities but that they require a level of honesty and self examination which the majority of people struggling with their challenges of life are not able to, or have not learned to, work with.

I'm not dismissive of the majority of people and do not seek to judge their situations harshly, but I am interested in looking at them as objectively as I can.

For me the main issue is about this 'contract' I have always felt that there has to be agreement about this and if one or the other of the partners steps outside the agreement whatever it is then a betrayal as taken place, if either partner changes their mind then the contract needs re-negotiating and if agreement cannot be reached the contract should be disolved. Communication has to take place, if it isn't then it is important from my point of viw to ask myself am I behing honest withmyself and my partner and are they being honest with themselves and me.

End note... I'm not perfect of course and may have got it wrong, (At least once) but my intent has been good and have never set out to take advantage of another and on the whole have not been taken advantage of, except by mutual consent.

"If there are people who can entirely divorce sex from emotional attachment, then they are the people to feel the most sorry for in my opinion"

I don't believe that this is possible at all, whatever the context or the contract there is always an emotional attachment of some kind (Oh dear I just made a sweeping generalisation, I'll have to think about that, but moving swiftly on) The question for me is what kind of emotional attachment is being made, this leads to the assertion that it is possible for freinds to be sexually involved without needing to make lifetime committments to each other, and this can involve varying degrees of freindship. The reality is also that this is quite rare though.

See previous posts for my experiences with this.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are at a distinct disadvantage in the context of modern pluralist society. To put it bluntly Mono-theism is beggining to look like a major reason for many of the worlds difficulties and problems.

The main difficulty is that the idea of one god leads to the proposal that ther is one truth, and if there is one truth then anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic and needs to be either a)converted, b) got rid of.

As a result Mono-theists end up getting into conflicts with almost any other point of view they encounter.

In europe Roman christianity has without doubt systematically attemted to eliminate any perspective it disagreed with for almost two Millenia, including other christians. It cannot be denied that Christians were conducting systematic persecutions of Jews centuries before the rise of the third Reich and these persecutions were on a similar scale e.g. Queen Elisabeth I was responsible for evictin as many as 250 000 Jews from Britain during her reign, The inquisition in spain probably cost millions of Jews their lives.

The Catholic Church in particular has attempted to promote Papal infalability and ban texts it doesnt like, many would argue they attempted to supress dangerous archological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi gospels which give us an entirely different view of christianity. Some might go so far as to say that the Holocaust came about as a direct result of Catholic dogma and pronouncements over the extent of its existance.

In some senses Islam now faces a similar difficulty except that it percieves itself as oppressed by external forces which contrary to the beliefs of some fundamentalists is attempting to accomodate it's view point, but for most monotheist's ultimately conversion to the faith is the only accomodation it will allow.

Psychology and sociology have for 50 years been pointing out how difficult and dangerous it is to attempt to say: this idea or that idea is the right one or wrong one, the medical profession has some difficulty with this and so do mono theistic religions.

Given that in the early days of Chrstianity there was a branch that was saying almost this exact same thing (The Gnostics) which the roman church activly and later ruthlessly surpressed, you could say that chrisianity has only itself to blame if it percieves itself as under attack.

Of course it is, Mono-theism might have helped us understand that there is a unity to the universe, but it doesnt help us understand the diversity of humanity, to learn from that diversity or live at peace with each other.

I really strugle with the doctrine called christianity today, I have more time for Gnostics though.

I havn't seen this film yet and will wait until I do to comment on it.

I have a soft spot for Mel from his Mad Max days, this passion thing caught me off balance though.

N.B hope to post a guide entry soon on a topic not to far away from this, visit my page in a week or so as I hope to present it to peer review then.

Hi Della

No I will not spare you. In America churches have block-booked performances and they intend to take their entire congregations, including children. As you are well aware the context in which a piece of propaganda is delivered is vital to its success.

If a child witnesses this film surrounded by all the adults in its life, everyone she know and respects, and they all give it credence and are enthusiastic about it, then the result is basically brainwashing. The shocking violence that the film alledgedly contains will make it all the more psychologically significant in their lives.

This is sinister for we are not talking about a simple piece of entertainement or even education here. Mel has stated that the film is intended to bring people back into the arms of the church by showing just how much their saviour suffered for them. It is intended to invoke guilt about our sins and gratitude for the saving grace of the Christ.

I am surprised that he didn't credit Leni Riefenstahl as an influence on his directorial style. She would have been proud of him.

There again his utter contempt for historical accuracy in such films as Braveheart and The Patriot should have forewarned us of this.

Your critique of my critique is amusing. You simply step past the fact that carrying the cross of the type seen in the film would be nearly impossible. Was this 'black man' the local weight-lifting champion as well?

According to contemporary records the population of Judaea was overwhelmingly jewish. In Jerusalem you would have found some Roman Citizens in official positions, a few Greek Traders and a handful of Samaritans. The actions of the Zealots had driven away a lot of foreigners, even the families of senior Army officers. This is why Pontius Pilate was so viciously suppressing all signs of disaffection within the Jewish community. All the priests of the temple had to do was label Jesus as a disturber of the peace, and potential source of dissent against Roman-supported authority, and his death warrant was assured.

The locals spoke Greek as a lingua franca. Indeed the earliest copies of the gospels and much of the work of the Essenes was written in greek so it would be more readily be available to the local populace. Aramaic was rapidly going the way of Welsh in the early 20th century. It was unfashionable.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

hey Della

Well of course it would be unsuitable for children of our times, it's how our society is built now (supposedly), to protect our children more, help them develop without such brutality in their lives (not always the case sadly but you know what I mean, I think).

I do appreciate that it is not a Disney version of biblic events.

If you want to watch childrens violence just check out comics, tom and jerry and poor sufferin wily coyote.....

(This next lot of waffle is not directed at you Della, just thinking aloud)

If people feel so strongly about this sort of graphic violence and suffering then why don't they do more to demonstrate about how they feel about third world countries suffering and wars?

Moving on.....I was hoping that there would be someone online that is really offended by the movie so I could probe more, because I simply could not understand why those people would protest so strongly in C.C gear and what relevence of said prison uniform that had to do with the movie.

These demonstrators in effect were reminding Germany and us of gross violence against themselves, because they didn't like to be reminded of 'alleged' violence to themselves in the new testament. I find that sad and ironic . I could go on to argue about that there was a Pontious Pilot and blah blah, but as stories go it was a long time ago and I wasn't there...and my knowledge of the bible is limited.

I get that it portrays graphic violence which isn't for everyone but the offended religious concept completely eluded me for this day and age of liberation. OK, so Jews stick to the old testament, and because of this bloke called Jesus, were really annoyed at his 'assumed' position of son of god.

So they did a coup de grace on him, could it be argued that these demonstrators are trying to crucify this film because its again, part of the bible that they refute?

Coffee morning rambles apologies for long windedness and haphazardly placed matter!

DELLA:

I would venture to suggest that an experience like that [ucommited and unsatisfactory sex] has been had at least once by every girl and some boys, born in the 20th century!

Are you really venturing to suggest that "every" 4 to 16 year old girl on the planet has been subject to such sexual encounters

Or are you simple making another woefully innaccurate and poorly thought through generalisation (in place of anything worth while to say as usual)

one love

Hey HS,

Quite right me thinks!

<>

Whether or not the story is true, it's a damn good one, and one that does give a lesson in itself even if your not religious I reckon.

Hey Math

You have an impressive store of knowledge *awe* thank you for your input, allot of stuff I didn't know...

I don't think the film was meant to be an accurate recording more like an artists' interpretation of events, still it's nice to know the other stuff that you have highlighted.

Sorry everyone....I seem to be reading back to front this morning, allot of backlog to catch up on...*phewsmiley*

I really dislike the film (and I havent seen it yet).

There are two reasons for this it is that the story the film portrays is very hypocritical. It puts the Jews in the frame for an execution that they were only partly responsible for. The Romans hierachy who edited alleged contemporary records of the event seem to get a much lighter touch of the brush that the Jews are liberally tarred with.

Secondly it focuses on one crusifixtion of the many that the Romans did and largely ignores other apects of the tyranny of Roman rule.

Thirdly immersing myself in the story for a moment even though this guy Jesus is innocent he has plenty of chance to escape this fate but chooses to take it on the chin and is rewarded for his sacrifice with an eternity in paradise.

He sufferes terribly and is dead for three days but should we still be making such a fuss two thousand years later? Some people are just obsessed with this story.

Looking at points two and three and applying them to the current occupation in that same region you can see how such ideas still inspire the indiscriminate violence that is suicide bombing today. Maybe its time we learnt the mmore important lessons from this story and moved on. Rather than just copying the same blue-print over and over again.

one love

Just re-read your posting Math....cos I were checking if I missed owt!

Anyway, was you punning....'Mel and his star'? I rather think you were....*chuckles*

It may be that language is wrong for the complete story you sound as if you are right. I guess those times were a hodge podge of dialects pidgeonised, I don't know, but I do like the fact it brings another language for our ears to listen to. I for one have not had the experience of listening to arameic. As for the cross, yes I am also aware of that impossibility for a mere man, but this is a hearsay story...

<>

As to what Mel says and what he thinks to my mind they are probably both very different, after all he is an actor, he is a producer, this is his job and I am very skeptical.. I do hope that children are NOT being taken to see it to shock them into compliance of beliefs, because what does that say about the adults *urgh*

Hey Blicky

Fair enuff, I don't blame you for disliking it!

Have a