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

It gives me shivers when people start talking about 'Higher Truth' or 'The Way' with Capital Letters.

Both of those projects sound pretty major, SD, so I hope it works out with both of them! Back in the 90s, I was researching the development of the canon and finding some of the excluded works. By and large, I wasn't impressed by what I found - some of them, the so-called infancy gospels were just bizarre! An interesting book (if you can get hold of it) is by a woman called Marcehtte Chute. (I am googling her even as we speak..) She was a poet, and wrote about Shakespeare - I think the book I read is The Search for God... it strikes me as the sort of thing you would be interested in. Also, here's a link I found by googling "Gnostic works", you probably woul;dn't agree with it, but have a look
http://www.faithdefenders.com/sermons/gnosticism.html
<<. While the New Testament is organically linked to the Old Testament, the Gnostic works reject the existence of God, the creation of the world out of nothing, the goodness of matter and flesh, the necessity of a substitutionary blood atonement, etc. Whereas Christianity is an extension of Old Testament Judaism, Gnosticism is an extension of Eastern religions such as Buddhism>> For instance I noted this particularly...
and
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Links/Gnosis_Links.html
should be of interest, and there's a lot of work in this link! Good luck!

The remnants of the rejected Canon, infancy gospels ect are not an impressive body of work, what remains is clearly far more corrupt than even the canonical works.

The recovered Gnostic texts, the only substantial corpus I am aware of is the Nag Hamaddi collection are far more interesting, the majority are appocalyptic texts (Insight/revalation) and whilst odd are not of anything like the tone of the corrupt versions of gospels already mentioned.

What is mortifying is that as so happens with the discovery of old texts in desert communities several of the scrolls and codicies originaly found were used to get fires going..... AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG:::::::::::::...................

That aside the translations I have read, lead me to think that the Gospel Of Thomas is undoubtably the most useful Gospel we have, it is a bare presentation of an approach to Christianity which is to me recognisable, but at the same time is clearly seperate from the Roman Tradition. In the same way that Sinaticus, Vaticanus, Bodmer, Chester Beatty are in some senses dubious so is Thomas, there are probably scribal errors and doctrinal additions as with any copy of a copy of a co.....ect, but it is the emphasis on what Jesus was supposed to have said which is reassuring. A first century historians creative description of speaches is absent, as are geneologies ect...Leaving some interesting 'quote's'.

I don't find the argument that you can link all the Sayings to the extant canon convincing in the least, having read one of the books which argues this a number of years ago I was left thinking that whilst you would expect a good deal of similarity, where there are differences some of the efforts require linking the first part of a saying to one gospel and the second half to another with no adequate explanation about why they are seperate in the current canon and together in Thomas.

The fragmentary remains of the Gospel of Peter is a tantalising glimpse of what would seem to be a gospel similar to the ones we now have, but even in the short passage we do have, there are interesting differences and views.

The links you post are interesting, to be fair I have followed a lot of gnostic links: the Gnostic Society Library on the web is one of My favourite haunts for instance. Just as with anything else there are a lot of false trails, when I first found a reference to the Gospel of the Essenes for instance I got quite exited, hoping this might be a new discovery in Judea, from a new cave arround the dead sea prehaps.

But sadly it turned out to be some chap who claimed to have seen an aramaic text of that name at Monte Casino and had then written a book with a translation of it, unfortunately there is no other living person who can verify he ever saw a manuscript, and he claimed the vatican was supressing it. Whilst I wouldn't put it past the Vatican (The Dead Sea Scrolls for instance) He somewhat sabotaged his own case by writing four volumes of translations based on viewing a text for a relatively short time. In the case of the last Volume this was written several Decades after he reputedly saw the text.

Now my memory is fairly good and I certainly couldn't guarantee to get anything more than a brief summary of a text even a day after seeing it never mind several decades. The somewhat obscure source of his PHD didn't help his case in my eyes either.

Admittedly I am a sceptic, but don't think this kind of thing helps either sceptic or the faithful, it just muddies the water even more than it already is, and thats pretty muddied.

Just one asside on one of those links

Dr. Robert A. Morey
"Since the Gnostic "gospels" attack the New Testament, it is obvious that the New Testament existed before them."

This is not a sound position:

1) certainly only minority of Gnostic texts attack the Roman Christianity. Thomas seems oblivious that there could be any other pont of view to what he has written

2) Roman Christianity make numerous attacks on Gnosticism, so it could equaly be argued that Gnostic Christianity must have existed before it (Paul is usualy cited as attacking 'so called Knowledge')

This is beside the discourse on the provenance of Roman Texts I have already engaged in, which addmittedly also applies to Gnostic Texts.

the so-called infancy gospels were just bizarre!

Were they really Adelaide, they must have been jolly bizarre to rank as bizarre next to carpenters walking on water, two risings from the dead, feeding five thousand witha few loaves and fishes, fasting for forty days.

And that's just the fairly mundane New Testament. The old one reads like the ramblings of some mushroom crazed party casualty.

Oi vey

All this scripture, its giving me a headache already!

Don't you poor pedants get it? Once it is written down it is dead and rapidly becomes dogma.

It may be a fascinating puzzle but it has absolutely no relevance to truth or the reality of now.



Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

PS- Alji, thanks for the Opus Dei extracts, you beat me to it by a few hours only.

are you suggesting that if you don't have beliefs , you're imoral ?

Strontium Dog

I'm a bit rushed, so will just put a couple of comments in here...

>>Poly theistic gods are more attractive to me than this unity, as they offer passion for existance. They represent those aspects of the 'unity' which can be seen as good, evil, vengeful loving ect.. this seems far more relevant to my existance and more fun too. <<

Er, no... actually that isn't the polytheist stance. The gods don't represent anything, they simply 'are'. Anymore than you represent some single 'aspect' of humanity. You don't, you're a human, same as I am. Though your interests might mean you specialise in something, you aren't defined by that interest.

Woden might be interested in kingship, but he isn't an aspect of kingship. He is a real, independent, separate being with His own agenda and His own path through the life He is leading. He is very different from me, but He is not my invention, not my personification of anything. And His character is as complex as any other living, conscious being, not simply 'vengefulness' or 'unpredictability'. And if you had met Him, you would realise that the direct experience is often fun, yes, but it's fun on the same way that walking a perilous mountain ridge is fun - not for everyone And not for me, though I known people who do personally honour and look to Him above all the others.

>>I am aware that you probably don't want to read all of the above but, I wonder if any polytheistic viewpoint can really afford not to be interested in the ways in which monotheism has usurped its role in the lives of ordinary people. I believe Polytheism is Liberating, provided it is able to find strategies to confront the forces seeking to suppress it. <<

It's not that I am not interested in the effects of monotheistic-dominated culture - it's just been done to death on this thread and on several other places I post, and I am all mono'd out at the moment

It's the end of term, and life is complex and busy, and there are not enough hours in the day to get everything done.

Jez

If you don't have religious beliefs, yes, some would say you immoral;however, in fact, if you have no religious beliefs, you are amoral; simply meaning without beliefs.

As for me, I prefer to base what I believe on reason, rationale and hard truths. Sounds weird coming from an ordained clergyperson,huh?Well, as I belong to the Church of Spiritual Humanism my tenets are based on fact and reason. Not to say I don't believe. I do. I believe in what I see as good, right and fitting to my knowledge of what is and what isn't.

I think I'll mosey on over and start a new thread similar to this one but I'll fully explain myself and my theories on the subject of religion. I'll let you know when it's finished.

Welcome to the gods thread...

We've been going for around 20 000 posts, but don't worry, you don't have to read them all

Just jump in and people will adopt you quite quickly

Jez - Polytheist heathen and non-Wiccan witch

Interesting. To be with out morals must mean that you operate your life around that which is perceived not to be good and that in order to be moral you must define and act in a manner which is determined by someone/ thing else’s set of rules ( god/s ) .

To an extent I personally hold with your view of rationality but also feel that I have a strong spiritual side which I would not stick a god label on . Its more about my belief in human potential which we currently don’t understand. I would prefer to believe that the codes by which I govern my life are determined largely by what I feel is right and that for the most part these fit in to societies general; rules but also allow me to feel peace in my life. Does that make sense !!!! let me know about the new thread, have just joined the site today, not sure what I'm doing yet !

Hi moxonthemoon.

Er, I hesitate to contradict the earlier advice you were given... but someone without beliefs can certainly be a moral person, ethical, virtuous, or whatever one wants to call it - even scrupulous, not that these all have identical meanings. In fact ethics is a major area of philosophy. I'm not saying it's easy...

Hi Andrew S ( back on line)

yes, In fact, virtuous and ethical would describe me perfectly, well occasionally I suppose.
But anyway, yes the world of ethics is far bigger than the world of religion. ( not that I am an expert)Please note I said bigger than religion and not God/s.
The initial contention was that in order to be moral, you must believe in god. This would imply that the only path to a virtuous and ethically sound existence is through religious observance. I would suggest that this can not be the case and that humans behave in a multitude of ethically sound and unsound ways , regardless of their belief in God/s or not

Hi moxonthemoon...

"virtuous and ethical would describe me perfectly, well occasionally I suppose"
I can identify...

In case you're interested there's an incipient entry on virtues and ethics at A2212903.

Hi moxonthemoon and welcome.

What are the odds that there is a god out there that is really, really impressed by people just because they believe in him and is really, really upset with those who don't.

If he created everything, why did he create athiests?
What a dirty trick!!!!

I'm an athiest and I don't seem to have any real choice in the matter.
I've got to rot in hell for eternity because he fitted me with a brain that can't see him????

I try very hard to be a good and decent person and I seem to do about as well others irrespective of their religion.

It's not fair that I have to burn. Not a very fair god.



YB

Thanks Andrew S, I am interested, thanks

Hello YB, thank you for the welcome
I take your point, there seems to be mass discrimination here against the occasionally ethical and virtuous atheist, who by no fault of their own, happens to have been created and born on this planet. Its so unfair that we have to function on a day to day basis , carrying the burden of knowing that we are doomed to burn .

If we’d been born some where else, other than earth I mean, I reckon there would be a fashion for something far more reasonable than the trendy human obsession with God/s.

Surely it is a matter of definition. If you don't believe in God, what is the definition that you don't believe in? Is there a possible definition you could believe in, or do we have to invent yet another word?
For me God is what we are, but we sleep-walk as to what we are, and then invent an old man in the sky to cover for our own rigidity of thought, and, dare i say it, vested interest and short-termism.

We all seem to believe in something, otherwise suicide would be a religion. Let's forget labels, we are all brothers and sisters together, issues of a beautiful and magical creative force. It doesn't seem perfect to us, but it is within us and by sensing and attuning to it, we could well hold the key to blossoming. We probably have potential beyond our wildest dreams, so I'm quite happy to call that God!
Love to all, ed.

Da%^%&^*!!!! I had a very long-winded but eloquent piece on the theory of "it all" and I hit the wrong key and lost it all!!!!!


To make a long story short; I agree we are all brothers and sisters of this planet and we were meant to learn from one another!

I'll re-do my story in my journal pages and you can read it there when it's done.


Blessed Be!!!

Sorry for the negative attitude.

The question of definition is a good one.

My websters unabridged dictionary definition 1 says "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe".
There are ther variations to the theme in there but this is the dude I do not believe exists outside our imaginations.

The dislike the idea that god is whatever you think it is.
The problem is that if god is anything then the word means nothing.
And the word does not mean nothing because the persons hearing the word is defining it in their terms.

The god club has a lot of social benefits that are withheld if you don't claim to be in it.

If I think god is nature and therefore I tell people "I believe", then I'm sneaking into the club under false pretenses.
The club looks larger and gains power.

Honest disbelievers feel isolated and judged by club members claiming a lock on goodness.

Life is hard, scarry, lonely, sad, and frustrating enough without having human compassion withheld by gods favorite people.


YB