From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Organization: .
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:45:12 GMT

In article <64447@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.193759.26811@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>In article <64213@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul22.215927.28391@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>>>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?
>
>>>I did not says this cannot apply to imaginary beings.  Pick one and apply it.
>
>>Excuse me, I meant to type "So why can you not apply this to people who
>>believe in imaginary beings?"  Little did I know that you would be
>>unexpectedly obtuse.
>
>obtuse - slow, stupid or blunt????  Or all three? :-)

How can I tell? 

>I don't think I was unexpectedly obtuse.  I answered your question.
>I mis-type too - I'm not real picky.
>
>As for your restatement, the God of the Universe (even if you call 
>Him an imaginary being) is not an insignificant being.  Ladders, cats,

Please support this assertion without reference to scripture.  Suggest
empirical tests for demonstrating your god's existance.

>and mirrors are in a different catagory.
>
>>>I said that the fear, in this case, is to be understood as reverence for
>>>the Supreme God of the Universe.
>
>>And I said its just as stupid to revere an imaginary being as to be
>>afraid of it.  The meaning you choose to apply to fear doesn't matter.
>
>Is it just as stupid to fear some invading army as to revere them?
>The point here is that you probably would fear the army and not per sa
>revere them.

When I examine responses such as this, I begin to believe that we are
on opposites sides of a dark and deep conceptual chasm.  While it may
appear that we speak and write the same language, it seems that we
are unable to communicate.

The point I have been pursuing is not about the precise meaning of the
word 'fear', but whether or not it is wise to apply an emotion such
as fear to an entity that is purely imaginary.  Your response has been
to engage in further semantic quibbles about the meaning of the word
'fear' and to make an unsupported assertion that your god is not
imaginary being.

>Fearing something is not the same as revering something, regardless of
>the word used - the context is what counts.  By the way, I used the
>word fear, for that is the word used in the scripture, else I would
>have only used the word reverence.

I could care less what word is used in your particular translation
of the historical fiction you base your religion upon.  I have no
interest in quibbling over the meaning of the word fear, just as
I have no interest in quibbling over how many angels can dance upon
the head of a pin.

>God has freedom as His plan for those who come to know Him and His Son.

Not the freedom to obtain an abortion.  Not the freedom to say and do what
one pleases to say and so.  Heck, not even the freedom to poke fun at it.  

There's a funny thing about this word, 'freedom'.  It has a definition,
and blind obedience to some supreme master of the universe does not fit
it.

It constantly amazes me that some individuals who reap the full benefit
of living in a constitutional democracy seem to yearn with all their
hearts to do nothing more than grovel on their bellies before a
dictator.

>You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.  God has

Are you claiming that once you know the truth, you will no longer have to
obey your god?

>not given us the spirit of fear, but of truth, love, and a sound mind.

If that is true, then why does it threaten us with hell?  And why is it
that the most faithful individuals often sound like raving loonies?

Why is it that the slightest suggestion that you reconsider your beliefs
produces a frenzy of mangled scripture from your lips like a mantra against
evil?  All it does is convince me that you can not be reasoned with, and
increases the likelyhood that I will not respond to your next post, out
of disgust.

>>>By the way, you so flippantly use the word imaginary - what about the God-man
>>>Jesus the Christ (Jesus of Nazerath) that walked this earth about 2,000
>>>years ago - he was all of the fullness of God in human flesh, the express
>>>image of God.  He was not imaginary.  In fact over 2,000 years later people
>
>>Do you have any evidence for these assertions of divinity outside of those
>>recorded in that work of historical fiction that you call "the Bible"?
>>If so, present the evidence or withdraw the claims of divinity.
>
>I see that your label of 'historical fiction' is sufficent to disprove the
>Bible - where is your proof? Have you got some other set of written work 
>or works that are better prepared to prove your statements?  Are they 
>written by eye-witnesses of the events?

There are many ancient texts that claim to describe the nature and
history of the universe and populate it with imaginary beings that
are attributed god-like powers.  Most of these texts contradict one
another, of course.  Rather then quibble over their validity in
respect to one another, I think it is enough to point out that none
of them correctly describe the reality that we observe, which can
be independently validated by any of us using empirical methodology.

In any case, it is you that have made the assertion that your particular
mythology is a true history, and it is up to you to provide supporting
evidence for your hypothesis.  Such is the burden on those who support
the alternate hypothesis.

>The Bible is a collection of 67 books written by multiple authors over
>hundreds of years.  It records the beginning events of the Christian
>faith, from it founder through the early church and it leaders.  It does
>not gloss over problems, as others writings could.  It tells about
>sin in the peoples lives, it tells of disagreements, and many books
>(which are by different authors) proclaim the divinity of Jesus.

Perhaps you misunderstand.  I'm familar with your bible, I just don't
find it convincing.  

>We see today the movement that was began, as recorded in the Bible,
>in the lives of people and organizations which are devoted to the
>message and the messenger of the Bible.  Can you trace back from 
>today and show where the fiction came in play?  When did this 
>fiction become fact in people's lives, if it is fiction?

There are enough contradictions in the text of the bible to suggest that
it is not an accurate history, and there is a quite a lengthy list of
such floating around the net.  It does not really seem necessary to
try to isolate a single moment when fiction became embodied in the 
text when such contradictions exist.

>>By the way, I don't think its stupid to admire a man because of his
>>thoughts or deeds.  However, to admire someone simply because they
>>have claimed (or it has been claimed on their behalf) that they are the
>>human expression of an imaginary being is entirely another matter.
>
>This is true - it is another matter, for many claim to be a or the savior.

Sorry, but I don't need to be saved.  Such individuals can only prey on
the insecure, and I am not one of them.

>>>still devote themselves to Him and His gospel.
>
>>Proving that many people are just as stupid today as they were 2000
>>years ago.
>
>Or proving that the message is as powerful now as then and that people
>are still as obstinate toward the message today as was then.

Apparently not as powerful is it once was, when it could compell the
children of Europe to attempt to retake the "Holy Land", and could
imprison people for speaking the truth about the nature of the universe.
In those times I would be burning on a stake for blasphemy and you
for heresy.

>>>>>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.
>
>>>You pose your thoughts on my understanding of the word 'fear' without
>>>looking it up in a dictionary, didn't you?  WORDS HAVE MORE THAN
>>>ONE MEANING - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY.  
>
>>And you avoid answering the question and engage in semantic quibbles
>>even after I have explained that the meaning of the word fear is
>>unimportant.
>
>Which question have I not answered?  

Is it silly to fear an imaginary being?

>You are the one that implied I had the wrong understand/usage of the 
>word - I said there is another understanding of fear and so gave the 
>definition.
>
>>>>>>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).
>
>>>I believe I answered them - now answer my questions.
>
>>As the author of the questions, I feel you have not.
>
>Each side seems right until the other side has a chance to repsond.

On the contrary, *I* seem to be right no matter how you respond :)

>>I will point out, however, to ask someone to sacrifice their child to
>>prove that they are obedient/worshipful/reverent/whatever is the act
>>of an asshole, regardless if one says "I was only kidding" when it
>>comes time for the knife to fall.  Its like recessitating someone
>>after you have held them under the water until they've stopped
>>breathing.
>
>If God is all-powerful and knowing, is it such a travesty to test someone?

If god is all-powerful and all-knowing, there is no need for a test at all.
In fact, if god is all-powerful and all-knowing, and it created us, then
it alone is responsible for any flaws we might have.  A test under such
conditions can only be an act of cruelity.

>>>I suppose society including yourself has advanced far beyond the settings
>>>of the writing of the Bible of say 2,000 years ago, huh?  Well just for
>
>>Technology has, most certainly.  Society, probably not.  Sure, we may
>>choose our leaders somewhat differently (although this is not necessarily
>>an advance), but no one seems to wonder why we need leaders at all and humans
>>still form hierarchies when ever they assemble in groups of more than two.
>
>>>your information, the Apostle Paul said then that the preaching of the
>>>Cross of Jesus the Christ was considered as foolishness by those who
>>>seek wisdom, but for us who believe, it is the power of God.
>
>>Do you have evidence for this reputed statement of Paul's that is
>>independent of that work of historical fiction you call "the Bible"?
>
>Do you have evidence that this statement of Paul's is not correct?

It is you, as the proponent of the validity of the bible that must do what
proving there is to do.

>Why do you so insist that the Bible is false?  Could you name another
>book that you have so questioned its worth?

I could just as well ask why do you so insist your bible is true.  Is it
because you lack the courage to face life as it is and the moral
fortitude to do the right thing without the threat of hell?  Or is
that you have been indoctrinated since shortly after birth and even
now cannot escape the shackles placed on your mind?

As for the other books whose worth I've questioned, their names are legion.  

>>>So I ask you, have you really advanced?????
>
>>I've advanced enough that I don't need the threat of hell to compell me
>>to treat my fellow humans fairly and compassionately and that I don't
>>need the lie of heaven to shield me from the finality of death.  I've
>>advanced enough that I do not blindly accept the word of so-called
>>authority.
>
>Do you believe in any kind of a reward system, for the deeds one does
>in this life?

Why does one need to be rewarded for one's deeds?  I honestly don't
understand why you feel the need for reward or punishment to force
you to behave correctly toward your fellows.

>>>>>Do not be decieved - God is not mocked.
>
>>>>Oh, this is just too clever!  I have so many responses to choose from,
>>>>including:
>
>[>>>1. ...]
>
>>>Yes, some do use the gospel as a means to gain, but we are warned that
>>>the true gospel is not a means to great gain, but godliness with contentment
>>>is great gain.
>
>>This statement would have more meaning if more priests had real jobs.
>
>Real jobs are in the eye of the beholder, evidently.  For we see most
>of them worth of their wages.  

Apparently you concede the point.

>[>>>2...]
>
>>You mean that god will be mad at me and put me in hell for making fun of
>>it?  Is that what you are threatening?  If not, please explain the
>>meaning of your sentence.  If so, then you only support my contention
>>that you worship a being that acts like an asshole.
>
>It supports the view that all have sinned and the wages of sin is death,
>for all who do not believe, as it was for me, too, before I believed.

Oh no, I guess you've blown a fuse again, since you're back to parroting
verses from your bible like a mantra against evil.  Do you really
think I have horns and cloven hoofs?

Or is it simply that you are unable to counter my point and not honest
enough to admit it?

>>>>3. Why if god is so powerful, why does it let its churches burn down?
>
>>>Does the church or the church building burn?  I think you missed the
>>>meaning of what the church is - it is the called out ones.
>
>>Back to semantic quibbling, I see.  Well then, if it was so powerful
>>would it let its church building's burn down?  
>
>I was trying to point out the misconception of the building beingh
>the church.
>
>I don't know why God lets church building burn, specifically, but again
>it is just a building and it will burn.  The bigger question for
>some is why do people suffer.  We are taught that the trials we face
>are working good as it increases our faith and perservence.  Much 

So god starves little children to death in Africa to increase your
faith and perservence. If god really wanted you to have alot of
faith and perservence, why couldn't he simply wave his magic wand
rather than taking it out on a bunch of kids?

Or to put it another way, why is there no mana in Ethiopia?

>less we aren't to thing it strange when we have problems.  It is
>better to suffer for doing good than evil - Jesus even warned us that
>the world will hate us, for it hated Him first.

You know, I've found that if you treat a person right, they generally
don't hate you.  So how are you treating people that causes them to
hate you?

>>>>4. Can god make a foot so big, it can't stick it in its mouth?
>
>>>I'll let you talk to God about this one.
>
>>Since I don't talk to imaginary beings, I guess I'll never know unless
>>you are willing answer on its behalf.  Think of yourself as Richard
>>Pitts, Jim's messenger to god.
>
>Fine, if you would like me to be.  However, we are told that there
>is only one mediator and that is Jesus the Christ.  We all can have
>access to God the Father through Jesus, but I'll see how much I can help.

Then why don't you ask Jesus the next time you see him to ask god if it
can make a foot so big that it can't stick it in it's mouth?

By the way, would this be Oral Robert's 900-foot Jesus?

>>>>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.
>
>I guess the lack of reverence for some things may not be tolerated 
>by God very well.  However, it seems your statements are more of your 
>belief than of a joke.

Clue time.  Imaginary beings are harmless.  Its humans that say they
follow imaginary beings that get all huffy about such things.  And
since such humans are the ones who create the mythology, is it any
wonder that the construct has such attributes?

>>>You can think you mock God, but guess who gets it in the end and
>>>who is the one giving it?  But before you jump on this, you must
>
>>Oh yeah, more threats, "Believe in me or burn!"  Sort of like
>>"Follow me or die!"   Threats by an asshole.
>
>No.  It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.

Still sounds like an asshole.

>And really the judgement has had some light shed on it, for, as above,
>all have sinned and the wages of sin is death.  The position of not

All have sinned?  Then I guess those aborted fetuses only are getting
what they deserve, right?

>following God, which is where every one starts, is what condemns.

You say it created the universe and yet it is so insecure that
it needs followers and so nasty that is punishes the ones that don't
follow it?  Sounds like an asshole to me.

Oh, the verbal cartwheels you spring trying to deny that the god you
worship acts like an asshole!

>>>realized that the opportunity is there for you not to get it in
>>>the end and this opportunity is available to ALL who believe.
>
>>Guess I'm not the sort to toady to an asshole.  One would have to
>>be completely morally bankrupt to enjoy "heaven" knowing that in
>>"hell" people are suffering infinite punishment for finite 
>>transgressions.
>
>One will know as one is fully known, when one gets to heaven.  I understand
>that to mean that we will understand what happened to us here on the
>earth and why people did what they did and why they are where they are then.

Big deal.  Nearly no evil that one could do in the span of one's life
can be worthy of infinite punishment.  I stand by my statement.

>>>>>>Once I was single.  Now I am married.
>
>>>>>How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?
>
>[...]
>
>>>You didn't really answer my question - does your wife agree?  Does
>
>>Hey, I answered yours better than you answered mine.
>
>>>she have any religious beliefs?  If she doesn't want to carry here
>
>>According to Tommy Kelley, everything is a religious belief, and there are
>>boneheads out there who even claim atheism is a religious belief, so I suppose
>>she does.
>
>I would tend to agree with Tommy.

Tommy Kelley is such a bonehead that many now prefer to insult him
rather than attempt to reason with him.  If you're another one of
these "Everything is a religious belief" guys, this will probably
be our last conversation.

>>>pregancy to term, she may find you so, however, wouldn't it be
>>>better if both wanted to bring a new life to the world to love it?
>
>>Get a clue.  It's the right to choose that's important, not the
>>choice itself.
>
>I disagree.  Both are important, as it is with spiritual things, but
>the right choice is of greater and possibly eternal merit.

Then why not let the woman make it?

>>>>>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>>>>>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>>>>>                        -|-  |  -|-
>>>>>                         |   |   |
>>>>You know, they look better soaking in urine.
>
>>>Your choice - the above crosses are a symbol of Christianity and I use
>>>them as such.  If you want use them in another way to represent your
>>>views, you can do so.
>
>>What a humorless drudge you are!
>
>I take somethings serious, as others do, too.

Does this mean you and your friends (and god, too, I imagine - yeah, I
crack myself up sometimes) are going to come beat me up?  Or will you
wait until I'm dead and then ooh and ah as clever tortures are applied
to my soul in hell?

>You fail to understand the great disgrace you try to cast on someone
>else's views by your statement, whether in fun or not.

You fail to understand that an imaginary being cannot possibly take
offense.

>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
-- 
Jim

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