From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:59:55 GMT

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714785507@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>Douglas Graham writes:
>>
>>
>>>The problem with that is that the reason Christians generally give
>>>to questions like "Why should I not be allowed to have sex before I
>>>get married?", is "Because God said it's a sin."  At least that's
>>>what it will boil down to in the end.  So, before we can discuss the
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>  man, you've got to go read your bible again.  god created sex!
>>he meant it to be anything but disgusting.  and i don't follow that
>>pronouncement about sex *just* because god said so, but because
>>from what *I* have learned about life, his edicts about where sex belongs
>>make sense regarding how we ought to live.  after all the bible is
>>an owner's manual for our lives, and it works for christians all
>>the time

>I suggest you read the man's post again, he questioned the edict against
>pre-marital sex..You have chosen to skirt this issue entirely.

  actually, the relevant part of douglas's post that i was refering to
doesn't appear in your post.  in that relevant part, douglas claims that
christianity assersts that sex is disgusting.  a misunderstanding of
extreme proportions [especially for people like my soon-to-be married
roomate!  :) ]

>>>I suppose I wouldn't really give a damn what other people chose to believe,
>>>as long as they kept it to themselves.  Unfortunately, it seems to be a
>>>tenet of a couple of the big religions that the religion should be forced,
>>>by any and all means, on people who want nothing to do with it.  It also
>>>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>>>to bring about the destruction of the planet.  I won't call their adherents
>>>fools, because many stood no chance, but I have no reservations about
>>>calling such "philosophies" evil.
>>
>>  not to call you paranoid or anything, but this is a public net with
>>facilities such as kill files.  in the context you're implying, no one
>>is *forcing* anyone to believe anything.  and if you still think there

>It is not just the usenet & has nothing to do with it. It is a large-scale
>phenomenon, diseases like pat robertson are an example, as are Jesse helms
>and Pat Buchanan

  sorry, i don't follow american politics *that* closely.  if you can
give an example of coerced belief in god, i'll probly have a response.

>>  also, now i'm going to seriously suggest you go re-read your bible so
>>you can learn that it does not advocate the destruction of the planet.

>The god in the bible gave man the beasts & plants to use as he wills. He never
>says anything about respecting them, or preserving them. The prohibitions
>on birth-controll (which come from the biblical "sin of Onan") are largely
>responsible for the ecological disasters around the world. Idiots like you
>who look starry-eyed at the afterlife are also responsible for not caring
>to preserve the eco-system for our progeny.

  i'm afraid you haven't seen my enviro-activism track record.  i will
not debate the sources of poverty and ecological disasters because we will
end up agreeing on most of it.  my argument is that while the bible not
only says we are responsible for stewarding the planet, there is also
the responsibility that goes along with that privelage.  while that
responsibility has been heinously avoided in the past [and the present :( ]
the bible and god's word cannot be shown to advocate abrogation of that
same responsibility.  for what we do with the planet in the name of god-
granted stewardship is part of our relationship with god.  

>>in eden we lived in harmony with god *AND NATURE*, and when we fell
>>we need atonement with god, but also we need to heal our relationship

>Where do you get this PC-gobbledegook? Not the bible I can assure you.

>>with our planet.  and after over a decade in the enviro-activism 
>>movement, the most compelling reason to live in harmony with the planet
>>is because god says so in the bible.

>It doesn't say so, and if it did, it would be the last reason to do so.

  well, there's no point arguing about it then.