From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 08 Jan 93 08:40:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: world,public

In article <1ii5veINNenf@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan07.030017.4370@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>In article <1ictd2INNjbr@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Excuse me, but you deleted the second part of this message.
>I was pointing out that either (a) the girl was suffering
>because of her own sins, or (b) the girl was suffering 
>because of the sins of her ancestors.  You conveniently deleted
>part (b), thereby giving my posting a different meaning.

I deleted part (B) because I see the sins of her ancestors as
being irrelevent...unless you mean 'the sins of all humans' to
mean 'the sins of her ancestors'. All actions by all people have
consequences.

>Above all, you have obviously missed the main point of the
>entire message, which is that (according to xtian cosmology)
>God created everything, including the rules of justice and
>causality.  

This I agree with.

>Given this fact, the girl's suffering is ultimately
>the responsibility of the being who decided that A&E's "sin"
>warranted death and suffering by all their descendents.

So choices we make should have no consequences on anyone, or
only one ourselves? If I hit you, you feel no pain? (Careful -
you appear to be in Seattle, I'm in Redmond <lots of smileys>)

>>>But xtianity encourages
>>>psychological dissociation by blithely assuring its 
>>>followers that seemingly Bad Things are actually
>>>Good Things, or at least Unimportant Things....
>>
>> [I rant about how I hate this attitude and disparage
>> those who, regardless of philosophy/religion, have tried
>> to push it at me.]
>
>All [those] who have posted messages in alt.atheist
>containing this attitude toward suffering refer to
>themselves as "Christians".  Although my opinion of 
>them is not high, they deserve better than being
>called "shithead".

...and I should probably save my venom for the specific people 
who prompted my anger. I certainly did not intend to insult all
atheists in the above, or all christians, or all stoics, or
all realists, and I apologize if I offended anyone. 

Btw, I'm in talk.religion.misc, and not up on current alt.atheist
stuff. Didn't mean to trod on a toe or miss a FAQ.

>>>Real humans experience a full range of passions; xtianity
>>>encourages a tepid blandness in the face of any joy
>>>or misery.
>>
>>Like how David danced naked in joy before his god and cried
>>over his sons' desertion? 
>
>I was talking about an attitude expressed in this netgroup
>which is encouraged by xtianity; responding with OT stories
>is a non-sequitur.  

If the old testament doesn't count for christians, why is it
in the bible <grin>. Song of Solomon is *definitely* an erotic
love poem, and many married couples I know rave about how it's
helped them in their relationship. Again, I'm not up on alt.atheism.

>Our main difference on this point is that I see this
>dissociation as central to xtianity, whereas you
>apparently do not.  So we can leave it at that.

I OTOH consider this dissociation a heresy which has very little
to do with christianity, and I strongly question the 'christianity'
of those who preach it or practice it.

So yeah, I guess we can...

-jen