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

Hi Nicky,

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

And Thomas, which may be the earliest of all. And possibly this: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/sophia.html (a good example of Jesus being inserted into other religions) or this: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/oxyrhynchus1224.html may be earlier too.

Then there's the Egerton Papyrus, which may or may not be a precursor to John, the Gospel of Peter (which is roughly contemporary with the canonical gospels), and the Secret Gospel of Mark (now lost, if indeed it ever existed, but referred to by early sources as a longer version of Mark).

On top of that there's the Epistle of Barnabus, where Jesus' saying about the temple being rebuilt is decidedly literal, rather than a metaphor for his own resurrection: 'Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it. That is happening now.' - which both supports an early date for Barnabus and gives an alternate interpretation of a key part of Christian scripture.

It's interesting how many of these very early documents do not mention the Resurrection; and those that do notably fail to claim there are living witnesses to it (some seem to regard it as spiritual, rather than physical).

Personally, I find this sort of thing quite interesting. But then again, I am a Have you ever read anything by Bart Ehrman? He makes a pretty good case that there simply was no Christian orthodoxy on anything - not even the number of gods - until well into the 2nd or 3rd Centuries.

Gif

>>some seem to regard it as spiritual, rather than physical

And also...I'm sure we're all aware of the various stances taken on physical ressurection by the various competing early Christian churches. Eventually, the physical ressurectionists won out...but it's clear that many early Christians saw things differently. Why would they do this if they were using the canonical NT texts? One presumes they used other contemporary sources.

Indeed - but not necessarily written sources.

What's the point of writing loads of details down if you believe that the end of the world is imminent (as many early Christian sects did)?

Many of the early beliefs are known to us only because of written rebuttals - we can but speculate on the rest.

Gif

<< this kid should be taken from two loving parents and handed to someone he/she does know and who probably doesn't want him/her. >>

You know that how?

It depends on circumstances. Women are sick of being used as what gay men call us, "breeders", who like cattle, have their off-spring taken away for the convenience of others.

Have a look at this man's blog, to see how *he* feels...
http://sonofasurrogate.tripod.com/
Extract: << How do you think we feel about being created specifically to be given away? You should all know that kids form their own opinions. I don’t care why my parents or my mother did this. It looks to me like I was bought and sold. You can dress it up with as many pretty words as you want. You can wrap it up in a silk freaking scarf. You can pretend these are not your children. You can say it is a gift or you donated your egg to the IM. But the fact is that someone has contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights and hand over your flesh and blood child. I dont care if you think I am not your child, what about what I think! Maybe I know I am your child.When you exchange somehing for oney it is called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. Babies are human beings. How do you think this makes us feel to know that there was money exchanged for us?>>

Here's the whole issue of commodification of womens' bodies
http://news.scotsman.com/world/India39s-surrogate--mothers-start.3882987.jp

"Last night critics warned that the vast wealth divide between the UK and India meant women could be exploited.

Susan Seenan, from the charity Infertility Network UK, said there were questions over the practice overseas that could lead to the exploitation of desperately poor women.

"Surrogacy is one choice open to patients with infertility," she said. "It comes down to patient choice and as long as they are making an informed choice then it's up to them.

"But are these women in India being looked after properly and are their rights being protected? These women are patients as well. Why are they doing it? Do they have an informed choice or is it being done out of desperation? There is a potential for exploitation."

<>

Oh don't be so patronising! It would be better if it was just my personal experience alone, but it isn't.

And I've met girls who were coerced as late as 1987, into both adoption, and much, much likelier nowadays, abortion.

Gay people who use the word "breeders" generally mean all straight people, not just women. At least in my experience.

Although personally I get the joke...

<>

And, I gather from what you've said at great length here, you're one of the JPs or whatever, who makes the decision against the mother. No surprises there then!

A feminist lawyer here in NZ, Catriona MacLennan wrote an article about this issue, where she pointed out that contrary to what Daddy's Rights groups (seem to) believe, a woman is most likely *never* to see her child again, if her child is ever 'won' by the father, or taken into care for any reason - even if she voluntarily surrenders the child! Two years later (for example) she's got a home, and a means of support, and goes to get her child back - and despite her voluntary relinquishment is told she has been ruled unfit! (That happened to a woman I knew, and her futile protests made headlines - but her child had been adopted out, despite her not actually having even been asked to consent. But posession (and that's the issue, the middle class idea that one can "own" one's adopted children, as one "owns" a new house or a BMW ) is nine points of the law, as they say.

<>

Weasel words. My definition of abstinence is that it is 100% observed and therefore effective. If you want to use some definition of abstinence that says "people who don't actually abstain at all, but instead, once had the idea cross their minds" then of course you'll get the result you want!


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

<>

You're lying Gif! You specifically mentioned people who can't afford fertility clinics and sperm donors so they go to the pub to find a shag. You know you did, so what you think you'll gain by claiming *I* made it up is just unknowable!

<<(*) Actually, there are some STIs that can be transmitted without sexual contact. >>

Then in what sense are they STIs? Please try to make sense...

<>

Oh typical Giford! I never accused any other Christians of mis-reading, I accused *you* of deliberate mis-reading. (Unless you're now claiming you're a Christian! I wouldn't put such a nonsense past you, all in the interests of trying to mess with my head...)

The rest of your post isn't worthy of any response.

(NB - Having a bunch of yes-men on hootoo calling you a 'Saint' doesn't make you a Christian).

Thomas is of course one of the Gnostics, and that people such as Verhoeven the film director, favour it over the Canonical ones, is not as meaningful as such people as Ehrman (not a Christian by the way) would like to think.

"Weasel words. My definition of abstinence is that it is 100% observed and therefore effective. If you want to use some definition of abstinence that says "people who don't actually abstain at all, but instead, once had the idea cross their minds" then of course you'll get the result you want! "

By that logic we can say that we only count people who use condoms properly. Guess what, although not 100% effectiove it is 99.99% (min) effective under those circumstances.

If we take a fairer system and go with those who intend to use one system as a measure then abstience fails to match other methods. This is how any sensible person would consider a measure of effectiveness otherwise the measure of effectiveness is useless.

<>

I've only heard them use it against women, and joke? What joke?

<>

What people "intend" to do... How meaningless is that? I can see a guy in court for not having a warrant of fitness on his car, saying "I intended to go to the garage, yer honner", and the judge saying "Oh well, if you intended to get a warrant, we'll judge you on what you intended! Case dismissed".

Yeah. Right.

I think you have a point on this. There's human failure, which I assume would have similar results for condoms and abstinence, and mechanical failure, where a condom can break.

Still I also take Giford's point: I've known a few no sex before marriage types, but none of them held on till marriage.

Myself I don't think the position makes that much sense. Spending the rest of your life with someone is surely a bigger decision, that needs more thought and more information, than sex?

<>

But they did marry each other right? Studies have shown that couples who try before they buy, or at least, couples who live together before marriage are more likely to break up within a few years of amarriage. (Though of course there are exceptions - my sister lived with her husband for 3 years and they've been married for 31 now.)

<>

Yes, but that thought and decision doesn't necessarily require sex as well!

However, I was thinking more of not couples who eventually marry, but couples who are more casual.. dating doesn't need to imply sex! (Although I realise it does to the point of one partner being angry if it doesn't - usually though not always the man)...

Me:
<>

Vicky:
>>And, I gather from what you've said at great length here, you're one of the JPs or whatever, who makes the decision against the mother. No surprises there then!

>>A feminist lawyer here in NZ, Catriona MacLennan wrote an article about this issue, where she pointed out that contrary to what Daddy's Rights groups (seem to) believe, a woman is most likely *never* to see her child again, ....etc.

Some clarification:

I'm not a JP. I'm a lay member of Children's Panels. We make decisions on the welfare of children. Sometimes children, sadly, have to be accommodated because of parental neglect or abuse. This is to be regarded as an extreme measure: we have a general principal of 'non intervention'. If children do have to be removed from their parents' care, there is a legal duty to ensure that family contact continues. Sadly, in a few cases, this does not always work out. Children may be adversely affected by parental contact. Parents may, due to the chaotic nature of their lives (drink; alcohol; crime; etc.) fail to maintain contact. In such cases there may come a time when children have been cared for by a foster family for a long period of time, are settled in their new home and regard themselves as part of their carers' family. Adoption may be an appropriate choice, but cannot proceed without parental involvement. Sheriff courts decide the matter, taking Panel recommendations into account. Sometimes, after a long period of time, parents may manage to turn their lives around. Even then, sadly, children may not wish to have contact with them.

Now you know more of the facts, Vicky, perhaps you will allow that it is actually a rathr sane and humane system. Would you like to comment on you apparent assumption that I am part of some secret, coercive and systemically mysogynistic apparatus?

Would you like to further comment on whether children adopted under such circumstances should, on the breakup of an adoptive perents' relationship, be returned to a mother who may not be fit to care for them and even if she is, they may have expressed a strong desire to have no contact with?

I suggest that when you spoke about adoption previously, you may have been talking solely about a previous coercive and secretive process. You may have over-generalised to the reality of modern experience that I am more familiar with.

Incidentally...why is it 'no surprise' that I'm involved in this work? (but thanks for the compliment. <winkye&gt

Jokes never work once they're explained...however...

I believe that when gay people refer to straight people as 'breeders', they're not refering to women as useful brood mares or men as sperm donors. It is merely an ironic reference to the peculiar heterosexual practice of tying oneself down with mewling brats - and a counter to homophobic terms of abuse. It goes without saying, though, that some gay people have as much of a maternal/paternal instinct as any straight person. It's only a joke.

Re abstinence vs condoms:

You are right, Vicky, that 100% abstinence is more reliable than anything else at preventing STIs (and pregnancy).

However, in matters of public health, we have to be realistic. Faced witha choice of promoting abstinence or promoting condome, we have to accept that abstinence programmes are likely to be unsuccessful. 100% success rate is...unlikely. Making condoms available is more effective as a disease prevention measure. Abstinence promotion + Condoms is likely to be slightly (but possibly only marginally) more effective than condoms - even though, admittedly, condom promotion may militate against the effectiveness of abstinence education.

The point is, I'm afraid, that - sad though this may be - many humans are filthy beasts. This must be taken ainto account in setting policy.

Hi Vicky,

Messy stuff:

>Weasel words. My definition of abstinence is that it is 100% observed and therefore effective

Fine. Then my definition of 'condom users' is 'people who have been trained in their use and/or have several years experience of using them', and thus both methods are near-perfect in reliability.

Let me try to explain in more detail why you are making a mistake here. Did you know that the statistics for condom usage include people who intended to use a condom but never took it out of the packaging, and even people who intended to use a condom but never actually got around to buying one? Surely we can't include them but exclude people who genuinely intended celibacy but got a little drunk one night? We need to compare like with like. We can compare real-world condom stats to real-world abstinence stats, or we can compare theoretical perfect user stats with each-other. Either is fine. But comparing theoretical perfect user stats for abstinence with real-world stats for condoms (or vice versa) is completely invalid.

><<(*) Actually, there are some STIs that can be transmitted without sexual contact. >>
>Then in what sense are they STIs? Please try to make sense...

Pubic lice can be transmitted without sexual contact. AIDS can be transmitted without sexual contact. Thrush can be contracted without sexual contact. In answer to your question, I suppose they are STIs in the sense that their *primary* means of transmission is sexual.

>Studies have shown that couples who try before they buy, or at least, couples who live together before marriage are more likely to break up within a few years of amarriage.

Is that your grounds for opposing sex before marriage?

Studies have also shown that deeply religious couples are more likely to get divorced than more secular couples, e.g. here: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/stats.html Do you think therefore that people should be discouraged from being religious for the sake of the children?

Gif

Hi Vicky,

Personal abuse:

How nice for us both that I feel the need to devote an entire post to replying to the personal abuse you have chosen to throw at me.

Again.

>You're lying Gif! You specifically mentioned people who can't afford fertility clinics and sperm donors so they go to the pub to find a shag.

One of us is lying, but it's not me. I have never said any such thing, on this thread or elsewhere, as you could have known if you'd taken the trouble to check your facts before accusing me of lying. This is the fifth time that I have demanded you back up your claims or make an apology for you accusing me of lying about a claim I have demonstrably never made. I have yet to receive even one response from you, other than saying that you will never apologise.

>Having a bunch of yes-men on hootoo calling you a 'Saint' doesn't make you a Christian

I haz yes-men? I can haz bimboz?

>I never accused any other Christians of mis-reading, I accused *you* of deliberate mis-reading.

So when other Christians have a different interpretation of scripture to you, they are honest upstanding people, but when I point out an example where your views differ from theirs I am 'deliberately misreading'?

Gif