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

Pattern-chaser,

<>

I do understand what you were getting at with the example of the hypothetical anal impalement cult. It also reminds me of a stand-up comic, can't remember his name, who said that if Jesus happened now (well, I heard this about 25 years ago) Christians would all be wearing little electric chairs around their necks.

The thing about most crucifix imagery is that it is usually a very 'sanitized' version of a crucifixion. Compared to Mel's imagery, we never see Christ the Saviour dripping with blood from head to toe, flayed ribbons of bloody flesh hanging off his body, blackened eyes swollen shut, etc etc.

So, in a sense, Christians have made an art out of holy suffering and have removed it from harsh reality to make it appear somehow appealing. Jesus 'suffering' is usually portrayed as gazing heavenwards with a longing and somewhat pained expression on his face. He is not ever portrayed (at least in mainstream Christianity) as having his bruised and bloodied eyes swollen shut and with shreds of bloody skin falling off all over the place. I wonder why.

az

Conclusion? Christianity is a masochistic death cult.

I don't know why I find the idea of the Passion as a Gay sadomasiochist porn film so intriging..

But if it is that violent perhaps it is

It's not as interesting as it may sound, Z (imho). I still don't get why this film is being called so amazingly violent. It's only one person being abused and tortured. Unlike in my previous example, Braveheart, there aren't heads and limbs being whacked off all over the place with huge geysers of blood spurting everywhere.

As far as I can see it was just the scene where he is flayed that is quite violent. The rest of the time he just looks like he's covered in ketchup and he falls down a lot.

az

I was actually wondering if this was something to do with the sexual taste for whipping that people (other than me) seem to have. No one seems to find other forms of violence sexual like heads being chopped off and stuff.

Perhaps because head chopping off is a bit, um, final?

I read that Mel had backed off from portraying William Wallace's public torturing and castration in Braveheart. Mel only showed him being tortured and (hmmmm) having his head chopped off. It is said he was making up for previously lost violent sexual gore with this new film. Who knows?

az

<>
That was a reference to a guy called Daniel Dennett (?) who says (as far as I understand him) that what we think of as our personality/consciousness is created entirely by the firing of neurons. We are, he says, meat machines, with an illusion of personality and continuance.
<>

My attempt at something as jarringly offensive and childish as 'jeezian death cult', though it doesn't come close, believe me.

<.
Because the point is the Resurrection! I don't understand PatternChasers obsession with the Crucifixion.
I was thinking yesterday, when making my way home, about the 'jeezian death cult' sneer. Don't mistake me, I was not brought up Christian, I have studied other religions, (including the atheist/humanist one)so I know - and Christianity is one of the few that qualifies as a *life* cult!

Della
I've heard that argument before. I've always wondered exactly what it is that the illusion is supposed to be fooling, though.

Illusion? Oh, you mean Daniel Dennett. I haven't got a clue who it's meant to fool, I don't accept what he says for a moment!
I don't even really understand why he says it...what he gets out of it.

Well, I can't speak for Pattern-chaser's so-called obsession, but the crucifix is pretty much THE symbol of Christianity. It's what Christianity obsesses about really. Yes, you can say it's all about the Resurrection but more emphasis is placed on the Passion.

Next Sunday Semana Santa starts here and there will be one week of non-stop processions depicting various stages of the Passion. There are almost sixty processions depicting the Passion and Death of Christ. Then the following Sunday there is one short procession early in the morning for the Resurrection.

az

"If there is no afterlife, no soul, not even any *real* consciousness, people are just meat machines, and quite dispensable."

Della, I would suggest that humans can be seen as having a lot of dignity in either view, whether there's an afterlife/soul or not. Sitting across a table and saying "no, YOUR view cheapens our lives!" isn't very productive.

A lot of people get a lot of significance and meaning out of their lives via their ennobling belief in religion. A lot of people get a lot of significance and meaning out of their lives via their ennobling belief in humanism. Why, oh why, does one have to be wrong?



Regarding homeopathic remedies, so they doesn't pass double-blind tests, and only work when people know they're taking them. So... they do work, when people know they're taking them. "...they do work..." I don't have to know that there is a well-understood mechanism by which my homeopathic asthma pills stave off an attack, as long as I have them around when I find myself short of breath. I "belive", if you like, that after I take one of those little pills, I breathe more easily, and if anyone wants to say that I don't in fact breathe more easily after taking one, they've got a lot of proving to do. What's missing here?


GTB

I was responding, GTB, to someone's allegation that belief in an afterlife made Christians gaily careless about killing, an assertion I found quite bizarre! So, I was pointing a contrast.

Sure Della, and I hope it was clear that I don't agree with them either.

It was just that you responded by saying that *lack* of belief in an afterlife somehow cheapens human existence, which I think is unnecessary to make your point, namely that belief in af afterlife does *not* necessarily cheapen human existence. Neither belief nor lack thereof necessarily cheapens human existence. The infinite value of each human life is compatible with religion *and* with atheism.

To be fair, people have used both religion and atheism as justification for atrocities, too. To wit, on religion's side: "just kill them all, and let God sort them out". It is common enough for some fanatic to convince their followers that, since the afterlife is what's important, we can go ahead and kill people in this life. So common, that I wouldn't call it remotely "bizarre". I trust you've heard of the concept of Jihad? In which a concept of afterlife is used to promote gay carlessness about killing in this one? Well, the Christians have done that too. Meanwhile, officially atheist societies, like 20th Century USSR and China, managed to be gaily careless about killing without needing to refer to some heavenly reward. It seems that man's inhumanity to man can thrive in religious or atheistic soil!

I might even go so far as to say that the morals with which people comport themselves are, in many cases, completely independent of and unrelated to those people's religious opinions.


GTB

It is my opinion, GTB that people *use* religion, or atheism, or politics to justify the desire to kill, invade, conquer or make war on other people. That's why I am surprised when some people say that religion causes wars - it doesn't - it's a convenient cover for the desire to have power over a populartion.
The "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" thing dates (I am told) from the wiping out of the Cathars in medieval France. But what I have heard is, that that too, was a political thing, disguised as a religious one.

Hi Della

"It is my opinion, GTB that people *use* religion, or atheism, or politics to justify the desire to kill, invade, conquer or make war on other people. That's why I am surprised when some people say that religion causes wars - it doesn't - it's a convenient cover for the desire to have power over a populartion."

I couldn't agree more (waits for Della to recover from surprise ).

As I have said many times before wars are caused by the desires of a wealthy power-elite. It is naieve to think otherwise. The Falklands conflict is a perfect modern example of a war being allowed to happen to prop up two failing governments. I won't even get into the last two Iraq wars.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Discordian /|\.

When I was about 12 my school did the passion play for Easter (it was an RC primary school run by nuns). There were a lot of 2nd generation italians in my school and the most italian-looking chap was chosen to play Jesus. The stations of the cross and the crucifixion scene were accompanied by a soundtrack of whips, screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth that caused a few raised eyebrows amoungst the non-relious parents in the audience. (where did the nuns get it from apart from anything else)

I was already begining to reject catholicism at this point and found it all a bit unpleasant. I played Pilate's wife, who in this version of the play was the 'power behind the throne' so to speak, and was largely blamed for making Pilate wash his hands. It only occurred to me later that this was typical catholic misogyny.

GtB,

Regarding homeopathic remedies...

A lot of medecine is about reassuring the patient while he/she gets better on their own. In that sense homeopathy is as good as anything else and as far as the placebo effect goes it is probably the best there is. However for a genuine organic illness it has no biochemical effect - it simply does not work. If the patient cannot get better on their own then they will not get better with homeopathy. Like a number (if not all) of alternative remedies, a problem arises when effective mainstream medecine is eschewed in favour of them; because patients who do this are putting their lives at risk.

If your homeopathic remedy helps with your back pain or hay fever or arthritis then I'm all in favour but reaching for an ultra-dilute solution of digitalis instead of calling an ambulance (and taking an aspirin) when experiencing severe chest pains is not something I'd recommend.

F

<>





Oh, right. I think you'll find that only around half of the people here are atheists. I'm certainly not one.

If you're still so offended, why didn't you explain how I'm mistaken about the sickening death-and-torture-fetishism in christianity?



Then why the concentration on crucifixion and death? The lead-up to Easter in the christian calendar is interminable. But once the gory stuff is over, the resurrection passes very quickly, with little comment or (ongoing) celebration. If you want to make your case, please read my posting about impalement, and then explain to me how I've got it all wrong.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Not much to add on the causes of war and other assorted cruelties (except perhaps that jeezian -and other- death cults could be subject to the same human nature explanation) or on the uses of homeopathy.

So, Daniel Dennett. Since I'm a fan of his I'll try and explain what I think he means, and why I think it's not as cynical as it appears.

The "meat machine" language is designed to jar people out of their preconceptions. Personally I prefer to refer to the brain as a "consciousness machine" (ie naming it by its function rather than its embodiment). Machine here means any structure with a logical form mediated by rules of cause and effect. The brain is such a structure.
And so is the mind. If the mind was not governed by rules I could not think "A is bigger than B, B is bigger than C, *therefore* A is bigger than C" with any reliability, or integrate my goals and model of the world to produce relevant actions. The logical form of the mind maps onto the logical form of the brain. The material substrate is philosophically irrelevant. The logical form/structure is what counts, which makes the postulation of a separate soul or spirit nonexplanatory.

Noggin