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

Michael1

" sex should be reserved for marriage( total giving of body linked to total commitment of self)

That is a precept that not many Christians follow.

I miss a bit of sense of humour about sex in many people, religious or not. But more in the stiff religious band. The problem with fundamentalists, whatever ideology they defend, is that lack of sense of humour about their ideas. They get too intense, rigid and strict. Never their minds will be changed, that would be a defeat.

Sex has a playful aspect to be enjoyed. Most Christian I know think so. ONly a few close to Opus Dei or any other ultra conservative group, think different.

>They say that to wish is to suffer, so if you refuse the object of your wish you wont suffer. <


You're twisting my brain there Mar. But I quite like that sometimes....

I think you are speaking about the Budhist doctrine of non attachment. One of the daftest concepts I've ever heard. Attachment is what human beings are all about. Relationships. I think the Budhist idea is that you *stop* wishing. Wishing is what drives us on. We've got plenty of time when we are dead to stop wishing. Of course people wish. Of course people are going to suffer when they don't get what they wish. So if this Budhist idea of stopping wishing can happen, of course you'll refuse the object, you won't want it. I think it's cowardly. But for healthy red blooded human beings refusing the object, smacks of masochism and Puritanism. And it also means you stay in one place. New experiences from new objects are what allow us to grow as people.

You'll never catch me twirling prayer wheels, chanting Om! and turning vegetarian.

>I didn't know that the aim of Science is to provide moral precepts!<

Yeah, I think it's a mistake to look at it from that point of view as well but as you say it *is* interesting, especially if you link on through to the original article it's from and get all the different perspectives on it.
Religion (or rather believers) do seem to have come to the conclusion that science is all about rubbishing their beliefs and there are some scientists (and atheists) who do nothing to dispel that notion; all of which is unfortunate to say the least.

>The Original Sin was about people who wanted to know from the tree of Science or something similar, it is not?<

The Original Sin was disobeying a direct order from God not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, doing so would allow them (I think) to see things as they really were. (Much like science when you think about it..... )

>I'm not so sure. Certainly not in this specific case.

...to supress debate by bringing Satan into it is a nasty underhand little weapon...<

I'm not going to comment on the specific case because I don't know about it but from *my* experience diviseness is seen as bad because it's distracting.
I agree though that there are those who just want to suppress debate and, for someone who believes, to be label others as agents of the devil is decidedly underhand and, again is something other believers shouldn't be shy about condemning.
There *is* possibly also the feeling that to be seen to be arguing among themselves would undermine their cause in the face of attack by atheists or those of a different faith. I'm only speculating on that one though - it's only just occured to me as a possibility...

>to wish is to suffer, so if you refuse the object of your wish you wont suffer<

Refusing it surely wouldn't make the wish go away? Do you mean removing the object of your wish, sort of taking yourself away from temptation?

>For me sex is not among those things to be forgotten...

...if you MUST refuse sex in order to be a priest, that's not healthy. You can't choose. So, it can become, if not a perversion, a clear sexual health condition for many religious people who don't know how to cope with that fisiological* need that is sex<

(*that's spelt physiological but you were close enough! )

You *do* choose. In choosing to be a priest (or nun) you make the choice to be celibate, it's not something that's sprung on you suddenly after you've taken holy orders - everyone is pretty clear on what the rules are before they start. And choosing to be celibate doesn't mean you are *unable* to deal with the physiological or emotional aspects of sex, you're just not following through with the desire to do it. For you, you say, that would not be something you would be willing to consider but there are many who are happy to agree to it.
Even in developing countries where people can be pressured by their family or community into joining the priesthood for whatever reason (years ago in Ireland it was a sort of prestige to have a son who was a priest, not to mention the fact that it meant that son would then be financially looked after by the Church) but they still know the rules before the join so they have, or they should have, made the trade-off in their own mind between what they will gain and what they will lose.

Yes lets get away from that specific scenario I'm referring to. You can be sureI have my reasons for thinking the way I do.

>There *is* possibly also the feeling that to be seen to be arguing among themselves would undermine their cause<

This is my problem in any situation where disagreement is seen as something negative and stifled. Thrashing out ideas, which will frequently involve disagreement, people being what they are, can only be a good thing for me. Providing a basic respect and caringness to one another is retained. And it prevents some kind of dictatorship of one idea forming, which is very unhealthy I think. I have far more time for causes that are self confident enough to allow internal disagreement to occur. Suppressing internal disagreement I take as a sign of real weakness. I think if debate is allowed, people are quite happy to come to some decision/agreement and coalesce around a basic philosophy/theology because indefinite dithering/fence sitting is also not good. So some people will leave a group if they disagree strongly enough with the majority. Nothing wrong with that. There's always new things to find out about and new groups to join if needs be.

Occasionally in certain circumstances it maybe necessary to be much more authoritarian for practical survival reasons, say like when a community/society/group is under attack from extreme hostility and violence. Then it is most important to all pull together under one banner to resist. But this is the exception.

<>
That's understandable though, isn't it? We feel beleagured, especially here...
<<. Because Mr 'Put up thy sword' is quite happy to tick off his Christian sisters in public, in no uncertain terms. >>

However, he's wrong to do so, no question about it...

<>

Regarding that, Toy Box, you should read C S Lewis' adult SF novel, 'Out of the Silent Planet', if you have the time to read novels in English!

Vicky

<< If you're saying the atheist men here said that I think you're going to get a lot of people disagreeing with you..>>

I mean specific ones here, who kept citing the Durex study, in an attempt to make me feel stupid about something I'd said here about NZ women... I don't remember the precise details, it was months ago...

Vicky

<>

I read her book about that in 2000, and did an essay on it, for an assignment about chronic/terminal illness, connected with my disabilities course...

Fascinating!

>However, he's wrong to do so, no question about it<

Yeah so why not name him upfront as a *Christian man*? You're are more than happy to frequently speak about *atheist men*. But I've yet to ever hear you even dare to say, *theist men*.

>did an essay on it, for an assignment about chronic/terminal illness, connected with my disabilities course... <

How theoretical. How cold. How patronising.

I imagine the CPNs I sometimes see, write daft meaningless essays about such things as I experience. But I'm 100X more alive, than they will ever be. I'd 100X more be me than them.

Books aren't just something to be ploughed through like fodder; before one moves immediately on to the next one. They should be chosen thoughtfully and sensitively. And then when finished given a proper period of reflection. What one learns from good books needs to be properly thought through. This can take some time. There's much to be learned by giving time to reflection on books. All the best ones have layers of meaning that can't just be just consumed like a big Mac.

<>

It wasn't though! My tutor criticised it for not being objective enough, and the other part of the assignment involved interviewing someone with a chrnic/terminal illness. I chose my elderly neighbour, a really sweet man, who helped me deal with my bird phobia once!

I felt very privileged to interview him - especially as he died not long afterwards. I wish I could convey what a wonderful experience it was for me. (The tutor who gave the assignment,who was not the one who marked it, wanted us to write about how the patients *felt* about their experience.)

Yes, you're right, I should have named that guy a Christian man with ideas that make me . He is such a person. (I can't agree with everything all Christians say, but for the most part, Christians meet disagreement with tolerance and discussion, not insult and anger.)

Vicky

>my bird phobia once!<

No wonder you hadn't the foggiest about the Romantic heated upness of blackbirds.

>Christians meet disagreement with tolerance and discussion, not insult and anger.<

But then it could be connected with their lack of hot blooded Romantic passion and, eat drink and be merry attitudes? To be alive, to be truly alive might be thought sinful?

After all. The devil has all the best tunes...
.............

Speaking of which........

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-D8hIeTwmck

I think Mr. Kissin and Mr. Rachmaninov are closer to the dark side........

<<my bird phobia once!<

No wonder you hadn't the foggiest about the Romantic heated upness of blackbirds.>>

Truly I am well scared of birds! Live, and especially dead (Mr T., helped get rid of a poor bird killed by a neighbourhood who had brought it onto my front porch as, I presume, an offering. The cat had chosen the wrong person to try to impress! (Much as I love s..)

<>

You should read Adrian Plass and George McDonald on that subject, Effers... Many Christians are passionate and have "heated-upness"... (although it has to be said, not many in New Zealand, where people tend to be what my mother called "phlegmatic" and dare I say it, boring? (There's a reason for my father's comments about apathy and the population comprising four million - thought there were only 3 million in his day.)

<>

T'ain't necessarily so, Effers (though I know EtB disagrees... )

>You should read Adrian Plass and George McDonald on that subject, Effers.<

No I think I'll give that a pass and make my *own* mind up on the increasing sample size of Christians I've come across as I get older. The vast majority of present day ones are a bunch of milk sops, or hate mongering fiends.

I'll stick to art and Romantic passion I think..rather than clinging desperately to the comfort of an afterlife and the arms of gentle Jesu. The sheer heated upness of absolute terror of the void is hard to beat for an adrenalin high, apart from sex with either sex, outside of marriage, with someone you are are demented about, that is.

The good and brave heart has most to teach I reckon.

But if you want that old misogynist St Paul to keep you warm at night, I wish you the best of British.....

> Many Christians are passionate and have "heated-upness".<

Yes its true, but not in any way I can relate to. My idea of 'heated-upness' always involves rule breaking, of some kind. I've never gone a bundle on safe and circumscribed heated upness. Say like in marriage, that God looks down on benignly .

It's just not hot enough for me.........

(And the nasty kind of heatedupness that I've had experience of, first hand, from some of the more heated up extremist evangelicals, battling good and evil, just isn't my cup of tea).



Have you ever thought of writing a book, Vicky, containing all the many sayings and wise words uttered by your old dad and your old mum?

>>I think you are speaking about the Budhist doctrine of non attachment. One of the daftest concepts I've ever heard.<<

Some who practise Buddhism seem much too attached to non-attachment..