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

Hi Ed,

>'All happy families are alike; each unhappy familly is unique in it's misery'

I recognise it, but without Googling I can't think from where. Is it Dickens?

Gif

Noooo. One of the most famous opening lines in literature. Dickens' was,
'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.'



(there are various translations of my line, btw)

ooh ooh I know! I know!!!


but I did google

Hi Vicky,

I think others have pretty much covered the ethics of adoption, but there's a couple of things on contraception and religion I'd like to go back to.

On contraception:

>abstinence will stop STDs completely, for the abstinent people themselves. Condoms are very effective at stopping HIV/AIDS but very good at all, at stopping other STDs.

People who use abstinence as their only means of contraception have a higher incidence of pregnancy and STIs than people who use condoms as their only means of contraception. The reason is simple; abstinence has a higher failure rate than condoms. If condoms are used correctly and never break, they are 100% effective, but that is not how their effectiveness is measured. If abstinence is 100% perfect, it is 100% effective (*), but that is not how its effectiveness is measured either.

><< but to claim that 'not even most' infections can be stopped this way is a deliberate falsehood spread almost exclusively by the religious that has done incalculable harm. >>
>Nonsense.

I'm not sure which of the 3 claims I made there you think are nonsense, so I will back them all up.

Most infections can be stopped by condoms: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fscondom.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda
Religious groups deliberately spread false information to the contrary: http://mediamatters.org/items/200506080006 and http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/23/christian-rights-war-against-condoms.htm and http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/yax-394.htm
This does incalculable harm: Compare, for instance, Uganda (almost the only African nation to have sucessfully combatted AIDS, based on an A-B-C programme) to the continental average: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4433069.stm

>you must know people who did that, even theoretically, because it's the scenario you (or Giford) put forward

No, Vicky, once again your memory is letting you down. You put forward the idea that 'not being interested in marriage' was synonymous with 'cruising bars for a sperm donor'.

Gif

(*) Actually, there are some STIs that can be transmitted without sexual contact. And, of course, there are Clintonesque grey areas over what constitutes 'sex'.

Hi Vicky,

On religion:

>Not at all, as yours was a deliberate mis-reading.

Oh yes, I was forgetting, anyone who diagrees with you is a liar. When *you* think a verse is only metaphorical, it's obviously only metaphorical, but when anyone (including, in this case, other Christians) disagrees with you, it's because they're 'deliberately misreading' it.

>You really believe in this "editing job"? (I can see why you want to, but still...) The Gnostic gospels were edited out, and for good reason, as were the 'fairytale gospels' written 500 years later, such as the 'infancy' gospels, but no significant doctrine was affected.

I don't see you have any choice. The history of the NT is far more complex than you give it credit for. The 'good reason' you refer to was that they conflicted with the theology of those doing the editing. Since the cannon was largely established by the 4th Century, your figure of 500 years later is an obvious fantasy. And to say that the Gnostic gospels were edited out but no significant doctrine was affected in the same sentence is truly breathtaking. Nor were the gnostics the only very early writings edited out.

>Do either of you have a religious justification for your divergent views? (from Ed)

I'm less interested in what the justification is than in how you would work out which of you is correct. Vicky has already said it's 'sanctified common sense', which (as I've pointed out) sounds to me like saying 'my opinion is right, whatever anyone else says'.

Gif

Move it to the top spot on your flatmates' bookcase. It's good!

Hi Vicky,

And one quick point on adoption:

Just one thing on adoption, since I went to some trouble to find this before deciding Ed knows much more on the subject (and seems to feel more strongly about it) than I do.

>in NZ, family court decisions *usually* go against the mother

Then I can only say it must have changed by 2005:

'The table shows that 4,046 females gained custody (granted and granted by consent) compared to 1,805 males. However, when analysed as a proportion of total applicants for each gender, the percentage of males and females gaining custody is almost equal. The 4,046 successful females represent 69% of all female applicants. Correspondingly, the 1,805 males constitute 65% of all male applicants. This suggests that it is usually the applicant, irrespective of gender, who gains custody.' - from http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/family-court-statistics-2005/chapter-2.html#215

Gif

Ur, translations.

Russian?

Gif

Could be, Gif, could be...

Incidentally, UK family law has a presumption in favour of maternal custody.

Anna Karenina.

Not much else to say, really..

>>>You really believe in this "editing job"? (I can see why you want to, but still...) The Gnostic gospels were edited out, and for good reason, as were the 'fairytale gospels' written 500 years later, such as the 'infancy' gospels, but no significant doctrine was affected.

I don't see you have any choice. The history of the NT is far more complex than you give it credit for. The 'good reason' you refer to was that they conflicted with the theology of those doing the editing. Since the cannon was largely established by the 4th Century, your figure of 500 years later is an obvious fantasy. And to say that the Gnostic gospels were edited out but no significant doctrine was affected in the same sentence is truly breathtaking. Nor were the gnostics the only very early writings edited out.<<

The gnostic gospels were written much later than matthew, mark, luke and john.

We know that the jury is out. There is disagreement amongst *Christian* scholars. The age and validity of the various components appears to be a matter of faith.

to fellow literary elitist Pedro.

<>

If priority is given to earlier texts, surely the fact that the earliest versions of mark (the earliest gospel) don't have the resurrection in them must make you wonder about editing, lmn?

Or even

as far as im aware they do have the resurrection in

<>

Nah, read it in a Stephen Jay Gould book.

Matthew 28, apparently.

Hi Pedro,

'the earliest versions of mark (the earliest gospel) don't have the resurrection'

Caution: they have the disappearance of Jesus' body, but seem to be explaining why there were no reports of said disappearance. They say some women found the body gone, and were instructed to spread the news, but didn't tell anyone. Then it just stops.

*My* interpretation is that this would explain/excuse why there were no early Christian witnesses to the Resurrection - others might read it in a different way. In any event, it undercuts the oft-made argument that anti-Christians could have produced Jesus' body; there's a good chance that no Christians were claiming a physical resurrection until much later.

Gif