From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Faith Healing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:50:16 GMT


	I haven't really been following this thread, but I saw something
I just had to respond too.

In <1992Nov16.024312.22635@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

>In article <n0e4ct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> 
>>JA-FSO> "Of course, because people can twist the definition of sin
>>JA-FSO> to suit their purposes does not make it an invalid concept."
>> 
>>Sin: failure to follow the dicta of the rich, powerful, ruling elite,
>>whom use the illusion of divine authorization. Do you have a better,
>>valid definition? "Sin" is arbitrary, and subject to change without
>>notice.

>How about Sin: 1) A willful violation of some religious or moral principal.

	A perhaps workable definition.  Of course, keep in mind that since
religious/moral principals change from person to person and culture to
culture, this makes the concept of 'sin' a very relative and subjective
idea.

>	       2) Any wrong or evil act.

	THIS is redundant.  How do you define 'wrong' or 'evil' EXCEPT in
the bounds of some moral or religious precepts?

>> 
>>Sure. Most Christian churches think "homosexuality" is a "sin."
>>This, however, is not about what is "right" and "wrong," but an
>>issue of CONTROL. A few Christian churches consider abortion a
>>"sin," but it is also an issue of control. That is why I likened
>>most religions, and specifically Christianity, as a control-freak.
>>Jerk a person's sexuality and watch them dance!

>But you can say that about any moral precept.  To someone who has no
>intentions of honoring it, it is just an issue of control.  To others,
>it is God's way of showing us the best way to behave.

	But the precept was not established by God -- it was established
by those who claim to speak in God's name.  And when it becomes a matter
of regulating other peoples behavior (such as laws) then it definitely
does become a matter of control.

>>Breaking law is not sin!
>> 
>>We were (I was?) talking about "sin." People do not fail to kill
>>others because it is a "sin;" they fail to do so because it is
>>wrong to do so, or they fail to kill their neighbors because they
>>fear retribution from the State or from the family / friends of
>>the potentially dead neighbor.

>We were talking about whether it is healthy to supress natural
>desires which you stated that Christianity did and was therefore
>unhealthy.  I merely pointed out that it is not only Christianity that
>supresses natural desires but society as well.  Why do you not call it
>unhealthy when society does it?

	One of the fundamental precepts of Christianity is that mankind
(peoplekind? :) are by there very nature evil and unworthy ('fallen'),
and so all basic human desires should be surpressed.  In other words,
it lays out a guilt trip for simply being human and having human wants and
desires.  The only allowable way to feel good about yourself is in
sanctioned behaviors.
	In other words, they invent the crime, 'sin', and then say the
only way out of it is to follow them.

>>JA-FSO> You have made the case for seeing Christianity as perverting
>>JA-FSO> sexuality. May I present an alternate viewpoint? Let us say
>>JA-FSO> that I buy something like a dishwasher. With it comes an
>>JA-FSO> instruction manual that tells me how to load it, tips for
>>JA-FSO> arranging the dishes in an optimum way for cleaning, which
>>JA-FSO> settings to use and under what circumstances, etc. Now I
>>JA-FSO> can look at the instruction manual and say, "This is just
>>JA-FSO> a bunch of meaningless regulation, I do not want to be
>>JA-FSO> confined by it" and proceed to operate the dishwasher in a
>>JA-FSO> manner contrary to the instruction mannual. At best, the
>>JA-FSO> dishes won't come out very clean, at worst I could break
>>JA-FSO> the dishwasher. And who was to blame?"

	You obviously haven't worked with computers much.  I find
much of the documentation lying around at best useless, often
misleading, and occaisionally downright wrong.  This would proba-
bly be even worse if I lived in another country, and English was
a second language, trying to understand the directions on how to
use a complicated piece of equipment. 

>>Theist falsehood #1: "people as 'things,' such as a dishwasher."
>>That's not what you meant, just what you implied. My concern is
>>a human one. Life is not a machine.

>Anti-theist falsehood #1: Take an analogy that was trying to
>describe something, ignore the point of the analogy and find some
>difference between the thing the author was trying to describe and
>the object of the analogy.  Then proceed to label the analogy
>false and useless.

	Analogy is a weak form of arguement.  I took your above 
analogy, changed 'dishwasher' to 'computer', and came out with totally
different conclusions.
 
>>Theist falsehood #2: "people come with instruction books." There
>>is no instruction manual for human beings.

>Anti-theist falsehood #2: Take things as literally as possible.  If you
>mean that no one is born with an instruction booklet, I agree.  But that
>is not what I was saying.

	Anti-theists aren't the only ones who take things literally as
possible.  Look at talk.orgins sometime.

>>Theist falsehood #3: "all people can be, and should be, governed
>>by one set of instructions." People come is all kinds, shapes,
>>colors, paradigms, social structures, intelligences, knowledge
>>bases, biases, etc. To force all peoples into a mold is what
>>all tyrants try to do--- those who do not fit are removed.

>Anti-theist falsehoold #3: There is no general guiding principal
>that could govern a persons behaviour.  Let's see, we usually eat
>when we are hungry and have food readily available.  We usually
>drink when we are thirsty and have liquids readily available.  And
>we all excrete when nature demands it of us.  Sounds like pretty
>general principals guiding all people in the physical arena.  Why
>couldn't there be spiritual precepts or guidelines in the
>spiritual arena?

	Theist axiom #1: there IS an underlying guiding principal to
all peoples behaviors, given (or idealized) by God.  I cannot debate
the validity of this proposition, because it is an axiom and not a
conclusion.
	The only way to judge this axiom is by it's utility; where
does believing this get you, as compared with not accepting it?  This,
however, is also futile, because you STILL need some standard by
which to judge the results, which falls back on whether or not you accept
the above axiom as a fundamental precept.
	Whether or not I would LIKE to believe in the existence of some
absoulute guiding moral principal (whether or not a divine one) is
irrelevant to the fact that I cannot DEMONSTRATE the existence of any
such principal, so I cannot use this concept anywhere.

>>--- Maximus 2.00

>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Ben

"We did, in fact, find everything we needed to know yesterday."
-- annon. astronomer at the 2nd Conference on Faint Blue Stars

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011