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

But that could just be me. My throat is sore and I feel of poo. Going to doctor's in a bit... I bet you anything they shrug at me and tell me to get more sleep.

Or that its a virus.

That's why I don't go to see doctors.

I'm something of a hypochrondriac... but when I see spots on my tonsils... I know I'm not imagining things. So I go - but normally I'll wait it out and hope I get better within a week or so. I'm just sick of being sick (I was ill the entirety of last semester) and it's making me moody.

*thus driving the thread totally off topic*

Ah, just go. Will at least ease your mind!

Going, going...

...gone?

You wish. Appointment's not for another 30 minutes.

Ok. So...um...what shall we talk about now?

I... have no idea. Wait for someone else to come by with some angry opinions perhaps?

Hmm. Well. That's boring.

I wonder how many people take their resentments outside of threads?

Probably a lot. I wonder how many people really and truly get worked up over all this.

I get worked up, but that's not a bad thing in itself. But I try not to take stuff outside the thread. Hence why I always make a point of not wanting to offend people.

However, some researchers *are* on my black list simply for their undesirable attitudes. But that's the same with anything in Life.

Like being an unimaginative bore?

Oh, you didn't take that seriously did you?

I rarely take any attack of my personality online seriously.

This has been an interesting and thought-provoking conversation that has taken me awhile to catch up with. That said, there have been a few points raised that I would like to comment on. Please bear with me, I've just read the thread in it's entirety.

On the initial subject: bashing Christianity. I wouldn't say that it's "trendy" to do so much as it is human nature to defend one's position from perceived attack. Most people do not easily accept criticism of something so deeply personal to them, leading to the reception of any negative comments as bashing. Perhaps Christians would do better to take the high road and turn the other cheek. You cannot control how others think or what they have to say about your chosen lifestyle, but you can control your own reactions. "I only know that I can change, everything else just stays the same."

In post 188 kea said (in reference to conformity of the Christian religion) "its not whim based and has a lot of support from the church as a whole. one of the high profile anglican bishops in nz is a woman. if chritianity had never been revised she wouldn't be in that position"

So as a result of equal rights movements it was decided that after a few hundred years it would be perfectly okay for women to join the clergy even though it had been previously unheard of. Granted society has changed in the past few hundred years, but what fundamental part of the word of God had changed that suddenly made it okay for previously banned women to then join the clergy?

Consider this (not necessarily) hypothetical situation:
In the next hundred years the popularity of the Christian church will dwindle to an almost miniscule following. For fear of the religion dying out altogether the church decides that perhaps premarital sex isn't the demon it was once thought, so it's suddenly okay to have sexual relations outside of marriage with intent to conceive for the purpose of propogating the tradition of Christianity. For that matter, if a married couple are unable to conceive after years of attempting to do so, in this special circumstance it will even be okay for either partner to go outside of their marriage to attempt to conceive.

These decisions have not been made by a high-ranking church official on a whim, but have the full backing of the majority of the church for the purpose of it's continued existence. Thoughts?

In post 202 Amy said "Overall I think it's what is held in common that's more important, especially among the non-cultist denominations."

But exatly how much is held in common? Given all the denominations and sub-denominations of Christianity what basic principles define them all as Christian? If Christians can't agree on what it is to be Christian, how can they possibly expect to be taken seriously by others *in the respect of their chosen faith*? And if Christian A has so little in common with Christian B aside from a basic belief that there is a God, why not identify with denomination (since that's what makes all the difference) instead of the "blanket" identity of Christianity?

And (finally! ) in post 248 RMF said "I don't Like atheist who campaign Anti-religion, it is why people despise us a lot more than they should"

Turnabout is fair play. I don't like *anyone* who feels it's their right to intrude upon my time with their propaganda, regardless of what they're in favor of or against. But if Christians feel it's their duty to stand on street corners or in shopping malls and "witness", and if Jehova's Witnesses feel it's their duty to knock on a door and interrupt someone's otherwise peaceful day to share their views, then I don't see why Athiests shouldn't be able to do the same thing. I daresay a majority of them wouldn't be bothered, but it's their right all the same. I can tell them to take a hike just as easily as I can tell anyone else the same thing.


Sorry for the obscene length of my responses.

Cheers!

"And (finally! winkeye ) in post 248 RMF said "I don't Like atheist who campaign Anti-religion, it is why people despise us a lot more than they should"

Turnabout is fair play. I don't like *anyone* who feels it's their right to intrude upon my time with their propaganda, regardless of what they're in favor of or against. But if Christians feel it's their duty to stand on street corners or in shopping malls and "witness", and if Jehova's Witnesses feel it's their duty to knock on a door and interrupt someone's otherwise peaceful day to share their views, then I don't see why Athiests shouldn't be able to do the same thing. I daresay a majority of them wouldn't be bothered, but it's their right all the same. I can tell them to take a hike just as easily as I can tell anyone else the same thing."

Yes but the problem with Campagining atheists is that people don't ignore them Like they do Jahovas Witnesses or Mormons because Atheists tend not to do the same things, such as going door to door. They get noticed and usually are succesful in Imposing their will on other people. Like bout a year ago, that one man who got invoulentary stating of the national anthem because he "claimed"(it was later found out this wasn't true) that his daughter was having religion pushed on her. I have never been threatned by the words "Under god"

*Its ok if you went a bit long, we encourage people to state their opinions *

Ah, what do I mean? I was just being flippant...I was thinking of 'Wolfram and Hart' (if you know Angel...)

Amy, it's good that he knows how to think for himself...

RMF - So it's not OK, because people are listening to what they have to say?

Sounds a little jealous, and more than a little odd.

In fact, I am confused. Am I wrong in being reminded of the Section 28 thing in this country, where speaking about being gay is forbidden in schools because it would be "promoting" homosexuality?

If people want to set up an Anti-religion organisation, that's up to them. I certainly don't think they are doing any damage. Doesn't sound like they are exhibiting the same behaviour as a lot of Chrisitians. Just sounds like they are saying something that people are interested in listening to.