From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Missing the point
Summary: Email correspondence with a christian
Keywords: dogma, lack of original thought
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:48:11 GMT
Organization: not affliated with any

The following is a conversation from email I've had with someone, who will 
remain nameless (because I didn't get his permission to post this and it was 
originally sent as private mail).

Subject: Re: missing the point

I originally said:
>> In your, or anyone elses, opinion what exactly do you think religious 
>> thought should serve to accomplish?  I'll argue that it serves to segregate 
>> the masses, to promote prejudice and intolerance, to oppress the downtrodden,
>> to suppress the underprivileged, and to protect the power of the 
>> privileged.  Of course this is in a sociological perspective -- this is what
>> religion has actually done over the years of human history.  What it was 
>> originally intended to accomplish, I'd venture the guess 'to explain what 
>> cannot be explained.'

He/she asked:
>  Could you give any specific proof for this accusations?

Yes.  In studying early religions, and "ancestral" or "totem" religions
it is a common theme to have a god or spiritual force to explain some
happening in nature.  When there is a drought it is because some god or
other was displeased.  When there was sickness some other god or spirit 
was unhappy.  This can be well illustrated in the Greek culture in Ovids
"Metamophosis."  

Religion is just an organized mythos.

> History does tell us that those popes and churches oppressed minorities, 
> but do they represent Christianity or the spirit behind it?

Well, you are speaking to an athiest; I do not believe in a spirit.  I
can only tell you that the social power of religion has been abused by
men throughout the ages.  Many have died.  Take the Crusaids, a classic
example of segregation and destruction.  But better yet a more modern
case of this is the Catholic Church and the Condom issue.  Because the
church did not advocate the use of condoms or sex education, thousands
of people, more people than if they had been inteligent about the
subject, have been infected with the AIDS virus.  We won't know the
impact of this 'doctrine' for a few years to come.  That is a more
current example of "idiocy and theocracy."

> NO, they were just using the name of Christ to fulfil their desires. Other 
> than religion => love, politic and military power,etc. are  used, too.
> What they have done is a disgrace to other christians, and they don't 
> deserve to be called so.

Organized religion is a loaded gun sitting on a coffee table.

I don't care who misused it, it was misused!  Things were done in the
name of LOVE, but people didn't abuse the POWER that LOVE has to obtain
their own ends!  LOVE is not an institute, and it holds little power
contrasting it to religion.

>> I think when you speak of spiritualistic living, you are talking about a 
>> moral and righteous exisitence.  Morality is fine, as long as an 
>> individual's morality is not dictated to her.  Righteousness is downright 
>> wrong, for in reality, for us to live other things must die.  Is it right to 
>> kill the deer to feed your family?  It is neither right or wrong, it is 
>> necessary.

> First spiritualistic living is more than a moral and righteous existence, 
> it's a kind of life style that has communication with God in the day-to-day 
> living.

Communication with God?  Listen, you read some note on alt.athiest,
mailed a reply to me, and then you think I'm going to buy you talking to
god on a daily basis?  I'm sorry but my beliefs are summed up as follows:

I don't believe in heaven, hell, god, satin, or the bible.

> Righteousness is bias among human but absolute in God, 

There is no god, and there are no absolutes.  Period.

> therefore when 
> non-believers talk about righteousness they are not talking about 
> Christianity's righteousness which is unique and clarified in the Bible.

Delusion.

> By the way christians live around you, and so we need to work, eat, study 
> and have fun; therefore we are downright realistic.  The Bible does not 
> tell us to eat deer or beef.

I offered the analogy of killing a Deer to illustrate that there is no
"right and wrong" in this universe.  There are always, at least, two ways
of looking at things.

> PLEASE read the Bible and learn about the jargons before you accuse 
> Christianity or other religions.

I've read the bible twice over so far.  With each reading I am astounded
that rational modern people believe the boulderdash contained within.  

I have one last statement to make.  I think very little of religion,
especially orgainized religion.  I think that people who are overly
religious are just looking for a way to get out of thinking and
rationalizing the universe for themselves.  I, however, see the need to
express that, given these tendencies to feel the way I do, I do not
think any less of any religious person.  I respect people of faith who
live their lives based on what they believe.  I hold no respect for
people who do not live their philosophies.  In this letter I offer you
an alternate view of life -- I do not intend to offend.

--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.