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

Jez

I know I am one of the main culprits for developing a discourse into Monotheistic theology, however Christianity tends to require this discourse is addressed and in the context of the existance of the god's it seems relevant to me since there is the Christian position that Christ and god are indivisible.

No doubt you can tell that I dont agree with that and my discourse on the canon and the origins of Christianity is more directed at what I believe is closer to the truth of what took place, quoting DNA, 'a man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we were nice to each other for a change.'

This highlights what for me is another spiritual truth, being nice to each other to a great extent requires that we are able to tolerate and discuss conflict rather than pretend we are all happy families together and get on with each other marvelously together no matter what. Eventually in such situations the conflict explodes in some way usualy leaving blood on the rug which history suggests to me is exactly what happened to Christianity - Constantines conversion was he claimed because Christ helped him win a battle, which always struck me as odd.

The role of music continues to fascinate me, Which also raises the question of what is spiritual about Music, St Johns Night on a Bald mountain (Mussorgski) is spiritual music for me, even though it's essentially supposed to be about torment and evil. Equally Hendrix's version of the US national anthem (Woodstock) seems spiritual to me, to others it might not seem so. Mutual drumming also creates something special in my opinion.

Andrew S

What I believe would support the canon would be some indication within it that the 'truth's' were acknowledged as a particular viewpont at a particular time.

I don't so much disagree with the whole bible as I see it as the viewpoint of the particular people who wrote it at the time the wrote it and this draws me into a fascination with who they were and why they acted and wrote as they did.

PETER

I believe Peter in his letters (The provenance of which is disputed) is trying to keep the peace between James and Paul, or at least their Followers.


The big link to God Fact or Fiction is in my mind that if God does exist, then the very concept demands that such an entity would be incomprehensible to a mortal mind, Ghandi said there is no God but truth and during my life I have come to believe that whilst it is important to seek out truth, it is hard to find.

The bible does hold truth but the artificial seperation of the characters in the bible from the normal motives of normal people is I believe destructive.

I find it hard to accept that suddenly all these people got faith and that the normal vagiaries of human life just fell away, especially when the stories told and the actions described suggest otherwise.

I have more time for Peter than most, The Rock of the Church seems to go through what appears to me to be a normal human process of development. He is at first quick to anger and struggles to understand what Jesus is saying to him, he develops a strong protective instinct towards his freind and even gets into fights about it, when his freind is imprisoned and executed, he switches back and forth between his love for him and his fury with him at putting himself in that position (Denies him) {I have problems with the passion narrative so I'll leave that for now} later after Jesus's death He has a personal relevation and begins to teach what his freind taught, but carrying a sense of guilt about denying him. he sees some sense in what Paul Preaches but feels loyalty to his freinds brother and tries to keep the peace between them. And his story continues to develop in this way.

Paul story doesn't, before his vision he is one thing, and after it he is another, there is no sense of development or evolution, just a magical transformation. And the bulk of odd coincidences an missmstches in his story add to this, there may well have been two Annannias's but it is an odd coincidence.

Hi Jez

And why not....

Brigidh

In the wind I hear her, her voice in the crows,
Her movement in the susurration of grasses in the breeze.
She comes to me on night borne wings of dark silk,
Her love spreading across the sky and parting the clouds.

In fire I see her, dancing in the candle’s flame,
Her hot breath down my spine,
The coals of her desire ignite my spirit,
Her fiery stare searing my pride.

The waterfall of her mind looses my thoughts,
And carries me through dreams of ancient bards,
Scattering the reeds of her azure intent,
And dashing after the dancing salmon of her laughter.

I return to the embrace of the earth,
The comfort of her cool touch calms me,
And I lie back beneath her trees,
Knowing that, like her, I am the stuff of stars.

Bardic blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Az

'Do you really think all this Bible stuff truly has much to say about the concept of god(s)? Surely it has more to say about what people felt a need to believe in at that particular time. And specifically about Christians.'

I think it has quite a bit to say for the big reason you highlighted, what is it that drives people to believe, particularly when such belief appears to provoke so much destructive conflict, and often seems to me to ba against reason.

Conspiracies????

I am struggling with why this word has come up, I don't imagine a conspiracy in any concrete sense, (Even Pauls possible role as a spy or an informer, or even Cult Leader, suggests an individual seeking personal gain rather than a conspiracy as such) I do not see people huddled arround a fire or sheets of papyrus trying to work out how to invent or subvert either Christianity or Judaeism.

I do see people attempting to further themselves and what they want through behaviour we might expect to see on a daily basis, anyone who works in an office might easily recognise the role of cliques and power struggles in daily life, accompanied by the backbiting and tale telling all to further their own interests, I dont really see why first century judea should have been so different, certainly Josephus describes a context I recognise, and in Rome Seutonius's and Tacitus's histories suggest the run of the mill political framework. The common people are often very similar to their leaders in this and the Roman empire would be an unlikely exception.

Even if there were a group of conspirators, such groups tend to be products of the time and context they arise in. The most convincing discourses concerning the assassination of J F Kennedy indicates that there were forces within the geopolitical situation of the early 1960's that meant it was almost inevitable that someone would at the very least take a pot shot at a reputedly reforming president, whether a lone gunman with a magic bullet or an FBI hit squad.

I believe that what most people regard as conspiracies, gives far too much to the supposed conspirators, who are probably quite bemused by their supposed clear thinking and logic, especially when as I believe they probably did most of that thinking unconsciously without realising they were getting drawn into quite difficult and dangerous affairs.

I suspect that Paul may consciously have decided to infiltrate the group he was persecuting, but then been unconsciously enticed into role of cult leader, the underlying split in his personality which this suggests is something reputedly commonly experienced by spys and may be related in some way to the Stockholm syndrome.

An interesting possibility (an Hypothysis not a theory) is that Pauls Epistles are coded messages, and in at least one he commends members of the imperial establishment to one of the churches he is writing to, What is that about?

Paul is also internaly inconsistant, at one moment offering a series of judgemental comments about roman sexuality and at the next talking about how a good Christian shouldn't be Judgemental because that is God's Job.

NB see Eisenman for more on Pauls possible role as a spy and 'liar' re the Habakkuk comentary (Not that I necissarily agree with all of Eisenmans Reasoning.)

Hi StrontiumDog, and thanks. That's a fair answer. I just thought your earlier argument needed clearing up.

If the existence of the Rylands Fragment were an argument against the canon, then the absence of other fragments might be counted as an argument for! - which would lead to absurdities. I think such texts have to be considered supportive, although you could look at the merits of each one to see if you could chip away at that particular support.

Strontium Dog

>>The big link to God Fact or Fiction is in my mind that if God does exist, then the very concept demands that such an entity would be incomprehensible to a mortal mind, Ghandi said there is no God but truth and during my life I have come to believe that whilst it is important to seek out truth, it is hard <<

The difficulty I have in engaging in this area of the gods thread is my fundamental problem with the idea of God (big G) as compared with the gods (little g). It seems (to simplify matters greatly - the full discussions have been gone into ad nauseam throughout this thread) that if you have a single Big G then He (and it is almost always seen as He rather than She) has to contain contradictory attributes. For example, He has to be all-powerful and all-knowing, yet if He is all-good, then how come the worlds He creates have so many flaws? There must be an better way

Now, I agree that to those who are used to the idea of a Big G, my gods are strange and limited. But that is the way they are, and that's the way most religions have seen their gods up until the advent of this triple-O idea a couple of millennia ago. Even the Old Testament accepts that Jehovah is one of many - else how can he tell his followers to have no other gods before him?

And even now, most Christians (numerically) deal with saints and prophets who seem more real to them than their single Big G God. It seems to me that the polytheist pantheons have a reality even for those who would hold their hands up in horror at the idea that they are polytheists Venus has new worshippers, as do others of the gods now renamed and venerated with altars and candles, prayers and fasting, pilgrimage and buildings made especially to honour them...

To my mind - and in my experience - the reason that the concept of the Big G god is seen as inherently incomprehensible to human minds is that it is false. Jehovah was - and is - a desert god of the same type as those he tells his followers not to hold above him He has had a few very good PR men (most of them are men, anyway) and his worship has been made into a religion suitable for supporting the power of monarchs. And that means that whereas my pantheon has a leader who is the god of the kings, the One-Eyed Lord of Valhalla, the Big G religions have a god who has been transformed into a god of nations who cannot afford to allow diversity of belief. They use the idea of Big G to promote intolerance and despotism.

Rant over.

Jez

Math

>>In the wind I hear her, her voice in the crows,<<

I like it.

Do you sing it at any particular time of year?

Jez

Strontium Dog

Don't worry about the leap into monotheist theology - I'm just not interested in it, it is as irrelevant to me as my personal experiences of my gods no doubt are to you. As I said, I'll just lurk until it's finished, or gets interesting again.

>>The role of music continues to fascinate me, Which also raises the question of what is spiritual about Music, St Johns Night on a Bald mountain (Mussorgski) is spiritual music for me, even though it's essentially supposed to be about torment and evil. Equally Hendrix's version of the US national anthem (Woodstock) seems spiritual to me, to others it might not seem so. Mutual drumming also creates something special in my opinion.<<

Apart from the US national anthem, which leaves me cold - and when I think of the way the US uses its power in the world, shivery - I agree - there are so many pieces of beautiful music out there...

But for me, the magic of music used to step into the places where the threads between the nine worlds are thinnest has to be performance - actual singing, playing, dancing, chanting, drumming... Participation, not being in an audience, is the key for me.

And so I am immensely grateful to the twists of Wyrd which made me a galdor-singer rather than anything else.

Jez

Adelaide (etc)

You have still missed my question, it seems...

>>>>What is my experience of religious music outside Christianity? More extensive than you might think! <<<<

>>So give us all your list. I am waiting with bated breath, as, I am sure, are many others.<<

Jez

<< quoting DNA, 'a man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we were nice to each other for a change.'>>

DNA wasn't always an atheist, in fact he was as staunch a believer as he later was an unbeliever! (I'm not trying to prove anything by this, just making an observation.)

<>

Yes, indeed, what *is* that about? This is so and what exactly do you understand by the term hypothesis? (You make it sound as if your statement above is held as a firm belief by some group or other... Is this so?

<>

I am sorry Jez, but I could not agree less! This is a really sweeping statement, and true (if at all) of a very few times and places.

Hi Jez

Yes I sing it at Imbolc, the feast of Brigidh.

Bright blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Della

<< quoting DNA, 'a man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we were nice to each other for a change.'>>

Ah, but DNA was wrong. That man was nailed to a tree for allowing his followers to claim that he was the Messiah, the deliverer of Israel from its enemies. Rather upset the priesthood that, and gave the Romans the excuse to execute him.

Nothing whatsoever to do with his attitude to the poor or needy. people forget that in his time he was a political figure, not a religious one.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Adelaide etc.

>><><<

>>I am sorry Jez, but I could not agree less! This is a really sweeping statement, and true (if at all) of a very few times and places.<<

Such as the entire history of the late Roman Empire, the fifteen hundred years of the 'empire' of the Catholic Church (especially in the areas of conquest) up until it lost power, the KKK, the missionary destruction of cultures across the world, and the present Moslem/Christian/Judaic conflicts in the Middle East?

Did you realise that in this country, religious discrimination for employment was only made illegal this April? We have had to wait longer than the disabled and homosexuals for legal protection.

But enough of this !


How about answering the one about your wide experience of non-Christian religious music? Then we could have a pleasant discussion instead of turning the thread to politics and history of montheism, which I find uninteresting.

Jez

Math

>>Yes I sing it at Imbolc, the feast of Brigidh.<<

Ah, First Flowers, the awakening of the earth...

I may steal it, and learn to sing it for that time of year

Thank you for posting it.

My song to my Lady is for the Turning, the full moon before the spring equinox, when She turns her midnight cloak full of stars inwards, revealing the bright Victory of spring in the silver/white/gold that is too bright to gaze upon...

Jez

hold up. in the UK, religious discrimination for employment was made illegal THIS APRIL?

Jez, I don't think your question about my experience of religious music other than Christian, is at all sincere. But if you really want to know, I have heard in my long life, heaps of music of all types, and haven't bothered if it is specifically religious! But as a language teacher (!) and a person with friends of the Muslim and Bahai faiths, I have shared in cultural experiences with them. There. That's it. Now will leave the question alone? As a debating technique, it reminds me of Member and his question that became a 10-dot thread...
If you are bored with discussion of monotheism, and feel free to say that, then . But how would you react if I said I was bored by hymns to various elementals?
(Note - I said *if* I was to say that... not that I am saying that...)

Going to the post office is a cultural experience. Most things are culture is merely the customs of a group of people from their philosophy to their art and food to the way they view work and sexual orientation. Your culture colours pretty much everything you do it might not dictate your actions but it has a deep effect on why you do what you do and the way you do it. It only bocomes apparent when you spend time lving in another culture and see the differences and similarites of how people live and think.

Like someone who lives in a christina country who is sent to sunday school isnt a *spotaneous* christian.

So Adelaide what are these "cultural experiences" you have shared in?

Oh well done on becoming qualified as a language teacher(!) BTW



On a broader note I think that pretty much all music is of a spiritual nature. What of synically manufactured pop and advertising jingles?

Well they affect pople in a spiritual way too. Not necessarily a good one. How many times have we seen videos on heavy rotation featuring music and messages about unrealistic sexual practicies and mindless, reprocussionless promiscuity. That taint our collective unconciousness in ways we are not aware of. Or music that gives us a unconcious feeling about the power of purchasing to impove our lives and lift our spirits.

Having been to a couple of niabinghi's I couldnt tell it much apart from going to some of my friends' bands practices except there was slightly less dope smoked in the niabinghis


one love

<>

I am assuming you mean Christian country... someone who was in this position, might, if they had parents who stated themselves(during childhood) to be atheist, be very surprised to find themselves becoming a believer when exposed for the first time *properly* to the Christian religion (as opposed to flannelgraph stories about Abraham, where no connection was ever made to God!

If you really want to know, I have been exposed also, to several friends and friends of family, who are Hindu, and their music, religious practices and beliefs.