From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:54:20 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

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.

>>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

>is philosophical oppression going on, look at all the sincere, intelligent
>ideas brought up by people contrary to such belief systems.  

I question the connexion between the two statements. What are you trying to say

>  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.

>that's one of the biggest fallacious myths about christianity i've ever heard.

I wish it was a myth... The world would be a better place for it...

>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.

>>>My point?  Doin't criticize what a philosophy says -- Christianity,
>>>atheism, Islam, Zen Buddhism, whatever -- until you know _why_ it says
>>>what it says.  Otherwise, you'll end up in a flame-war.  ;)
>
>>The things is, I do know why religions say what they say.  It's just
>>that their adherents rarely agree with me.
>
>  then please exercise the humility to acknowledge that you may be
>incorrect in your readings of what the religions advocate.

At least he reads. Your knowledge of the bible seems woefully inadequate. I
think you imagine things there because you think they ought to be there...

-Scott

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc