From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:59:27 GMT
Organization: .

In article <64097@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.141018.3802@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>In article <64007@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.
>>
>>We do not, generally, consider those who are afraid to walk under
>>ladders or break mirrors or cross the paths of black cats, on a path
>>to wisdom.  Why should we consider those who are afraid of imaginary
>>beings any differently?  
>
>You are quite correct with respect to ladders, mirrors and so forth.

So why can you not apply this to imaginary beings?

>However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 

Immaterial, as I shall show below.

>recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
>conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?

If this question of yours made sense, I'd consider answering it, after
you did the courtesy of answering my questions.

>definition: (from The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary)
>fear n 1. emotion characterized by dread or expectation of harm, 2. REVERENCE
>     FOR A SUPREME POWER, ...
>
>This is the only dictionary I have handy.  If you have one, you may want to
>check the definition yourself.

Please explain why we should consider those who have reverence for
imaginary beings any different than those who are afraid of them,
or black cats, ladders, breaking mirrors and so forth?  Is it
merely your distaste at being thought of as superstitiously
fearful that prompts you to offer this alternate definition of
"fear"?  If so, it isn't any better to be superstitiously
reverent than superstitiously fearful.

>>And why should anyone revere an imaginary being that behaves like an
>>asshole?

>Could you given an example of this and explain how it pertains to the
>discussion.

Once you answer my questions, I'll certainly give your request some
consideration.  Until then, I have the following suggestion:  Read
your silly book, but everytime you see the word "God", replace it
with the words "John Doe".  If you have half a clue, I'm sure you'll
find it enlightening (and after than, if you think it would be cool
to hang around with this "John Doe" jerk, you're a hopeless case).

>Do not be decieved - God is not mocked.

Oh, this is just too clever!  I have so many responses to choose from,
including:

1. Of course it can't be mocked!  Its an imaginary being cooked up by
greedy lowlives to scare insecure pinheads into supporting the
greedy lowlives' slothful life styles.

2. "Worship me puny humans, or I will cast you into the pit of flame
forever!"  Pretty good huh?  You should see it when I put on the fake
beard - I can almost hear god crying, "Mommy, Jimmy's mocking me!"

3. Why if god is so powerful, why does it let its churches burn down?

4. Can god make a foot so big, it can't stick it in its mouth?

It certainly seems to me that god can be mocked, as evidenced by the
above.  And if your statement was meant to imply that I shouldn't 
mock god because it would get angry an hold a grudge and maybe do
something nasty to me, like stick me in hell, well if god can't
take a joke or four, then this is just more evidence that it acts
like an asshole.

>>Jim
>>
>>Once I was single.  Now I am married.
>
>How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?

The State of New Jersey issued my marriage license.  God didn't
show up to sign it, the county clerk did.

Oh yes, there was an amusing ceremony in which we all exchanged spit.
God didn't show up there either.  Although my niece (who was the
"flower girl") spent part of the time rolling about on the floor,
which was even more amusing than exchanging spit.

Heck, god didn't even buy me a wedding gift.  Not that such a gift
would entail any big sacrifice by god, if it is the omnipotent
being  that every other bible-banger claims. A snap of the fingers
and "Poof!", his and her bath towels!

>do your wife agree?

She married me, didn't she?  Either we agree or we decided it wasn't
an important difference.  And I'm sure she finds me preferable to
some superstitous control-freak who thinks she should have no say
in whether she carries a pregnancy to term.

>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

You know, they look better soaking in urine.
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion