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

Hi

"I turned 35 earlier this year and I am happily married with two children under 6" ... Ditto. We have more in common than I thought

I've had a nice break and a chance to read some of the BL, with regard to our spat (would that be the right term?) in the FFFF. I would like to discuss this outside of that forum.

Would here be appropriate?

I think that we both made errors, but I would like to think that we can both learn something from each other.

Madent

Hi Madent,

Yes I am happy to chat to you here. I will confess I was tired and grumpy that night/morning (sickly kid). It can be a bit daunting to suddenly be in the middle of a fully fledged "spat" when you are fairly new to the site, so I am really glad you came back. I tend to be a bit full on when I debate - but if you were face to face with me you would hear the same words, but with a different tone and I am sure I would not sound so argumentative (says she hopefully...)

I am always happy to try to learn from life and other people, so - post away!

My only caveat is that I am currently moving house, and, coupled with my usual hectic routine (as you know having 2 children makes life, to say the least, interesting) I don't have a lot of time to spend online at the moment. If you don't hear from me, don't be offended, I am probably unpacking boxes or trying to stop my kids from "helping" me unpack boxes....I will keep up to date here as often as I can.

Regards

Thanks I've been here a couple of years now, so it'll take more than a little spat to cause me to leave. I occasionally go quiet because of other commitments or boredom, but keep coming back. I figure that the easiest way (but probably the longest) is to go back over the start of the discussion and see where we were both coming from. I've put some links in here to some of my earliest postings on the topic started by P-C. The original article was linked at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F80629?thread=155651&skip=3383&show=20 to which I basically responded a couple of posts further down. Subsequent posts then appeared to muddy the waters and confused religion and morality. I then tried to put my own view across http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F80629?thread=155651&skip=3400&show=20 a little more clearly. To summarise that view, I think that just as individuals have survival strategies, so do social groups. For groups, the survival strategy exists in the form of a moral code (or social contract?). Unfortunately religions either then form around moral codes, ostensibly to promote them, or pick them up perhaps as a way of enabling a religion to promote itself (though I dunno really - hopefully David Sloan Wilson will come up with something a little more coherent than reported in the link). Ergo, religion may be a product of morality, but morality is not a product of religion. Morality has an existence independent of religion, but can be warped and used by religion (does that make sense? I appreciate that morality is not a thing but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at). However, just as circumstances change so do moral codes. OTOH religions do not change in the same way. Religions change in line with the "assorted ramblings of mad-men, dictators and power-hungry priests and lawyers". Still, having tried to say all that, I completely failed to make it clear that I only feel that the moral codes of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, et al. were only ever totally appropriate for their particular context. (I'd like to come back to your dissection of the 10 C's, later.) Then in response to other comments, I posted http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F80629?thread=155651&skip=3419&show=20 (I later clarified this to BtM and in principle we agreed - the bible is highly editted, both by its original compilers and subsequently by the Catholic church. My reference to the church in the above post was erroneous, as it was immediately taken to mean Roman Catholicism, but I actually meant all church leaders since Moses, jews and xtians alike.) My own personal view is that the Bible is the work of many men and women across many centuries. It is a compendium of early oral traditions, biographies, historical records, laws, educational materials and totally flawed. However, that said, I'm prepared to accept that there is some information in there that is based on real events and real experiences. For example, it is my view that as an historical record it is a darn sight more accurate than Egyptologists would have us believe. That the original authors could find no way to explain those events and experiences without referring to a god, is not their fault. In this context, I was looking at the bible as a way of establishing the core moral codes of Judaism and Xtianity and these would only be found in the words of their originators, either Moses or Jesus. Which ultimately boils down to their specific commandments (not the subsequent witterings of sundry priests, lawyers and disciples). My positive view of both stems from my own attempt to look at them in context (but hopefully we'll get on to that later). Now as I see it, that was the original context of my posts prior to your first salvo (at me) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F80629?thread=155651&skip=3435&show=20 Can you see where I was coming from? Another long post, but a useful exercise for me at least as I have clarified some of my own views. If there are any points above that you want to pick up on

Hi Madent

I am just back from a holiday on the Great Barrier Reef with my family. I haven't been online much lately, and at the moment I just don't have the time (or to be honest the patience) to delve back into all your posts again. I think we both know what was said.

However, I do hope in the next couple of weeks that things will quieten down at my end and I will be able to give you my full attention - in the meantime I wish you well.

Regards

Hi Albaus

Hope you enjoyed the trip. I've never been "down-under", but hope that one day I will be able to take my family to such places.

The demands of a new job are also limiting my own time to be able to post, but I hope to be able to continue this, even if it is in fits and starts.

Don't dismiss the above post lightly. I feel that you made certain assumptions regarding my "beliefs" during the FFFF debate. However, I concede that I chose not to counter your assumptions and also chose not to correct them. The above does at least provide a framework for us to both better understand where I feel I was coming from.

When you have had the time to read the above, I'll come back to you regarding your critique of the 10 C's.

I wish you well.

Regards

Madent

Hi Madent,

I have tried to read through all the various posts again, but honestly and truthfully I have found it hard going. No offence intended (really!) it was hard enough the first time, and second time round even more so. If there is something you really need to address, please feel free to copy the entire post here in its entirety, I would rather scroll down regardless of the length than jump from post to post whilst fending off children, relatives and the phone - things are just a bit mental here and show no signs of abating....

I am not dismissing you, this is just not a good time for me to spend a lot of time clicking from post to post and taking note of various quotes. I hope you understand.

Regards

Alison