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

(For Andrew)
extracted from the online Catholic Encyclopedia (a source used by a number of erudite pagans I know):
"It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile the statements of St. Brigid's biographers...She founded two monastic institutions, one for men, and the other for women, but she also founded a school of art, including metal work and illumination."

(So much like the goddess who proceeded her, who was patron of healing, poetry and metalwork.)

"Viewing the biography of St. Brigid from a critical standpoint we must allow a large margin for the vivid Celtic imagination and the glosses of medieval writers, but still the personality of the founder of Kildare stands out clearly, and we can with tolerable accuracy trace the leading events in her life, by a careful study of the old "Lives" as found in Colgan. It seems certain that Faughart, associated with memories of Queen Meave (Medhbh), was the scene of her birth; and Faughart Church was founded by St. Morienna in honour of St. Brigid. The old well of St. Brigid's adjoining the ruined church is of the most venerable antiquity, and still attracts pilgrims; in the immediate vicinity is the ancient mote of Faughart. Her friendship with St. Patrick is attested by the following paragraph from the "Book of Armagh", a precious manuscript of the eighth century, the authenticity of which is beyond question.... It may be added that the original manuscript of Cogitosus's "Life of Brigid", or the "Second Life", dating from the closing years of the eighth century, is now in the Dominican friary at Eichstatt in Bavaria."

From some very cogent reasoning, the same source dates Cogitosus' 'Life' to the beginning of the ninth century, and so later than the so called 'Second Life', which was probably the first Life of Bride to be written. These two seems to have her mother as a slave and at least one to have her father as a druid, and herself as only drinking the milk of pale cttle with red ears i.e. fairy cattle. No wonder the Church talked about "Celtic imagination" and finds so little actual fact in any of the lives. Given that the first ones were written 300-350 years after her death, and there were no other records, that's rather akin to asking someone now to write a life of someone they admire who lived in the later 17th or very early 18th century, based only on what we've heard, or by asking other people what they've heard. And, of course, there's propaganda to take into account - anyone writing a life of the saint who was a part of her county or one of her monasteries or drew allegiance to her, would be likely to be writing to advertise as much as to venerate. Or, if the writer is honest enough, one has to ask what purpose the publication of the writing serves, as it cost more money to publish something then than it does now.

For myself, I suspect there was a woman called Bride (the goddess - and so her name - was very popular prior to and after the conversion to Christianity) who may have been an associate of Patrick. However, Patrick was not an emissary of the Roman Church - that was Augustine, a good century later. AFAIK, it was the habit of many Celtic Church foundations to be mixed and permit monks and nuns to marry. If that was so, then the single sex establishments supposedly founded by Bridget in the 5th century might have been anachronistic, or an example of the Roman model ahead of its time, or an example of someone who had psychological problems (misandroism). If one held any credence that the tales that she would only eat or drinks substances which were pure and white in colour she begins to look rather like a Christianised Michael Jackson.

I have to wonder whether she either already followed Roman practices or, more likely, was the perfect behicle for Roman propoaganda in its struggle for supremecy over the more relaxed Celtic Church, which refused to acknowledge allegiance to a foreign power. This struggle took place between the 6th and 8th centuries, and it may be that St Bride was a minor popular figure who was gratefully adopted by the Roman church and popularised for its own advantage.

Oh, oh - I can answer some of these, even though I'm not a Christian any more. go on, let me answer!!

1. There's just no point owning a Frenchman as they down tools and go on strike the minute you offend them or they disagree with they way you do things, or their terms and conditions. If you really have to own a foreigner, I'd go for a German or Swiss - they get all the work done by mid-afternoon, come with a clear and defined set of instructions and have less religious holidays than those from ex-Catholic countries.

2. The real problem is the collapse of the market since teenagers started answering back. If I were you, I'd try training her before you take her to amrket, as house-trained teenagers bring a much better price.

3. Raid her handbag when she's out of the room and remove all tampons etc. If she starts rummaging frantically in her handbag before she next goes to the loo, and then runs off to find another woman who might have a supply, she's likely to be on.

4. I'd keep to the summer months and cut off the hair before you start. A few herbs might help, too - for all concerned.

5. I think it's definitely up to you. Would you mind starting with Tony Blair, and then work this list of selected politicians.....

6. Yes, there are degrees: don't f*ck with shellfish.

7. Wear contact lenses.

8. Personally, I'd begin with the barbers....

9. Pay up for a decent modern plastic football, you skinflint.

10. You have obviously never organised a public stoning and have no idea what a jolly affair it can be. And just think of all the merchandising opportunities! You can turn their omissions into your commissions.

That's good, HS!

“When I learned of them (in the classroom of a Catholic school) they were defined as spirits (probably evil), but not gods...”

And were the Greek, the Roman, the Scandinavian and the German gods also described in these terms?

How very extraordinary. In my experience, people lie (and teaching children lies is the very worst sort of lying) because they are afraid that, if they tell the truth, people will act on that truth in a way that will threaten something they care about. But one might presume that the point here was to protect the Catholic God – but from what? If the teachers were right, and there were no other gods, how could there be a threat? Presumably it was therefore a matter that either the teachers themselves were ignorant, and were passing on their own prejudice and lack of knowledge as ‘education’; or else they did not know how to respond to questions about other gods, because their faith was insufficient, so it was simpler to lie; or else they were told to lie by the school and they lied, knowing these were lies, in order to carry on working there. Surely it would have been simple enough to say “these are the old gods of the land of Ireland, who were worshipped by people before the land converted to Christianity. People thought they could walk and talk with these gods as they walked and talked with each other, and that these gods were as real as Christians feel their own god to be. But there are major differences in the way people related to their gods then, and their religion, by comparison with the way monotheists relate to their god. This is partly the result of there being many gods rather than just one, and partly major differences caused by not assuming the gods were omniscient, omnipresent and all loving.”

”I have since heard from dubious sources that the Tuatha de Danaan were actually the people who lived on the island before the Fir Bolg. (That doesn't sound right to me...)”

One major source of the mythology of Ireland (I am using mythology in the same sense I would say the OT is the mythology of the Jewish people and the Christians – a source which tries to explain where things came from, and which is not to be taken literally) is the Book of Invasions. This relates all the various people who settled in Ireland before the Milesians (the people of today). The immediate predecessors of the Milesians were the Tuatha de Danaan, but there were others before them, and the Book of Invasions tells of those pople, and of the struggle of the TDD to settle the land. This site will give you a potted history:
http://www.irishmythology.com/Irish_Mythology_Mythological_Cycle.htm

”So what are your thoughts/beliefs, HS?”
Summed up here (which I helped to write) – it isn’t a long read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/subdivisions/heathen.shtml

As I remember now, An Tútha Dé Dannan were first explained as human leaders, Kings, Chieftains. Then later on in the class (we were studying the legend of Clann Lir, the children who got turned into swans) they were explained as being superhuman, ones who used magic, etc. & were working to protect the country. At the start of the story they were trying to get Ireland back on track by selecting a popular King after a period of civil war.
I just thought: the word Dé is not unlike 'Dia', which means God.

The nearest national school to my house is called 'Scoil Bhride' (why can't I get a fada on an 'i' when I got it on other vowels?). On my dialy trip to & from College, I pass two "St. Briget's Credit Union"s.

that so does not mean that we are satan worshippers if we dont believe. i believe in just living your life in such a way that you learn from your mistakes and make the best of your life without hurting others.
i guess it's just whatever way people in society refer or interpret it.

that so does not mean that we are satan worshippers if we dont believe. i believe in just living your life in such a way that you learn from your mistakes and make the best of your life without hurting others.
i guess it's just whatever way people in society refer to, or interpret it.

Hi nonsumpisces & welcome. I only dropped in here a few months age myself, from post 17 I think, without realising that the conversation had gone beyond 20 posts. It had gone over 20000 at that point & has recently passed 23000. As you will see, there are some christians here, such as myself, some pagans and some atheists. I haven't seen any Muslims or Hindus around, but there's some from a Jewish background, and at least one who belives in God from pure logic, I think. (I stand to be corrected in my word choice on that one.)

You say: "i believe in just living your life in such a way that you learn from your mistakes and make the best of your life without hurting others."
I believe that by reading the Bible & following its advice we can avoid making many common mistakes.

Also, you will probably have to define 'believe', as in : "that so does not mean that we are satan worshippers if we dont believe. i believe in..."
In your first sentance you seem to be puuting yourself in the catagory of people who 'do not believe', but in the seccond you say you so believe. I'm not accusing you of contradicting yourself, but you will have to define what you mean.

<>

Assumably it was surprising to someone, because someone thought that in this case "all her future will be ruined" and that for her to have a baby would be gambling for 'the entire life' of this young woman. I was just pointing out that this is simply not true.

(It would also certainly have been a shock elsewhere on H2G2, after the vote about tuition fees. Someone claimed that the government wanted the people of the future to have no skills other than advanced burger-flipping and (something I can't remember), apparently unaware that it was possible to get a more skilled job than this without going to university.)



Well, I guess on reflection I can think of two possibilities that would be prevented by one's having a child, but I can't imagine them being that much above having a family in terms of satisfaction in life.


Surely you see the difference between letting your own life be changed, and terminating the life of a fetus - facing the consequences yourself, and putting the consequences on another being, leaving yourself to act as if it never happened?
It's like running into somebody's parked car, after which you can admit it and offer to pay, in which case you face the consequences, or run away (which according to you would be 'an equal exercise of personal resonsibility (i.e. choice)', since it is also a choice the individual is free to make) in which case the consequences are put upon someone else. One of these I consider being responsible, the other I don't.


I'm eager to raise children as a father, and if I were a woman, I'm sure I would be eager to raise them as a mother.
If I have a family, it will be my responsibility to provide for them materially ("If anyone does not provide for ... his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith."), and unless I somehow make loads of money before then and can live off the interest, that will mean I will work. But if I had the chance not to have to work, and to instead spend my time with my hypothetical children, I would certainly take it.


I think it's sad that people equate spending less time caring for other people with having a higher quality of life. (Not that that's just in this discussion, it's something I've been noticing a lot in the world lately.) She gets to spend time with her family. I doubt many people ever led on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time in the office.


If you think you'd like to be a high school teacher, perhaps it's relevant that I'm at a teacher training college, and a lot of those studying here have kids.

Copying and pasting from a previous post Matholwch. We expect better of you.

That unpleasantness aside, it has already been covered that the Mosaic Law only serves today to let us know what God thinks about things, and a law therein only needs to be taken as such if it is restated in the New Testament, such as when the apostles had been called together to settle the dispute over circumcision and eventually concluded that what was necessary was 'to keep abstaining from blood and from things sacrificed to idols and from fornication'.

Hi HS
Your piece on Brigid seems sensible to me. The monastery at Kildare wouldn't have been the first in the world: the copts, led by Antony of the Desert (d.356) had led the way and there were monks in Rome by the time of his death. I expect St Patrick knew about monks. Wasn't he one himself?

I had heard he was entrusted with the task of evanglising Ireland by the Bishop of Rome, to replace someone else who died before he could begin the task.

What about his dream of the Irish calling him over to help them?

Hello Insight. If you don't mind, I'll just reply to those parts of your post which were replies to me, and leave it for the others to respond to your responses to them.

"Surely you see the difference between letting your own life be changed, and terminating the life of a fetus - facing the consequences yourself, and putting the consequences on another being, leaving yourself to act as if it never happened?"

(a) you say the foetus is 'another being'. I assume by this you mean another 'human' rather than another being on the same level as food or an insect etc. You will therefore have noted I do not agree this POV.
(b) Given that I do not regard a foetus within the womb as the same as a human baby (and neither does the government, BTW, as child allowances only begin once a baby is born), I do not know how to respond to your "act as though it never happened" as this appears to me to be loaded emotional language . Putting people on a guilt trip only works if they shal your marlity and you know what levers to press to make them guilty. I don't share your morality and dislike people trying to invoke gult in me, which I perceive as an aggressive act.
(c) I repeat, the woman has a choice: to carry the foetus to term, or not to. Either is taking personal responsibility.

"It's like running into somebody's parked car, after which you can admit it and offer to pay, in which case you face the consequences, or run away (which according to you would be 'an equal exercise of personal resonsibility (i.e. choice)'"

The cases are not similar. Running away in the circumstances you describe would effectively mean the other party must bear the costs of your actions, and so running away is theft. I know you wish to say to me it is exactly the same, as the foetus is a person, but that is the crux of the difference between your belief set and mine: I disagree. And I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish, as long as you don't insist others, such as women wanting an abortion, have to keep the foetus to please your relgious POV.

"I'm eager to raise children as a father, and if I were a woman, I'm sure I would be eager to raise them as a mother."

Sorry, but you have no idea what you might decide if you were a completey different person (which you would have to be, to have been born female).

"But if I had the chance not to have to work, and to instead spend my time with my hypothetical children, I would certainly take it."

So you have no problem with your wife, when you marry, deciding she would be happier to have the children and leave them to you to raise while she carried on with her career? (If she were so minded).

"I think it's sad that people equate spending less time caring for other people with having a higher quality of life."

Unfortunately, that is a fact of life for some. Which means I hold the view that people shouldn't do it if it's compeltely against their will to do so, and was approaching the argument from that POV. The POV you have just introduced is a different one, and I shan't muddy the waters by responding to it. in a post which is already long enough.

Hi moke

I think he had the dream earlier, before he was asked to go there; perhaps long before.

re: "...a public stoning and have no idea what a jolly affair it can be. And just think of all the merchandising opportunities!"

pet rocks anyone?

re:
Heathen Sceptic
"Nope, sorry..."-nope, sorry what? This wasn't a contest or a trial to test my 5 second definition of god.

"So your definition only..."; you have the most nebulous insinuation of how I define god yet you make conclusions; are you a prosecuting attorney?

"wouldn't you be better off calling it God..."; no, I only said 'god being' because someone else didn't thing 'god' was very specific, and I'd only use upper case G if it were the first word in the sentence. You seem to think less than a dozen words is enough for a highly specific definition.

"How far are you educated at all?"; very oddly put so obviously we have vastly different training when it comes to communication. To me, according to the way I was taught to write, this appears to be one question humping another: 'how far are you educated', and 'are you educated at all'. I might have one BS, two BAs, one MA, two MSs and three PHDs but it makes no difference what I say I have in this regard, does it? Odd that I don't see you correcting mistakes in other posts: have I struck a nerve that's caused you to single me out?

"The English is 'tyre'." Well sparky, I am in New York - over here it's TIRE and Lucas is known as The Prince Of Darkness. I realize we in the Colonies don't speak "English" and I'm glad people world wide can instantly tell the difference. We speak American, it's more popular.

"ah, so before they went to school,..."; a child's mind is virtually unalterable beyond the age of ten, so what's been accepted as real by that point usually remains so for life. While growing up we were required to stand every morning and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It lacked the "...under God..." line originally, that addition was deemed necessary by a politician. Regardless of what I believed in I was trained that our nation was "under God" by repeating this phrase 5 days a week, ten months a year for six of my first ten years. It didn't stick, in case you can't tell.

Just for you Moke; Scoil Bhríde

alt + 161(numbers on keypad)gives you the í


alji

The De Dannan were the orgiginal god-and-human-like inhabitants of Ireland. According to the old Irish Book of Invasions, they were driven under the Earth when invading "Milesians" arrived. There they became the "aes sidhe," the faeries. In Gaelic, the word "sidhe" means both faerie and "peace." The faeries are the people of peace.


alji

HS, Math and anyone else interested, read 'Community, Spirit, Place: a Reviving Celtic Shamanism by Alastair McIntosh @ http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1996_celtic_shamanism.htm


alji