From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Organization: .
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:37:59 GMT

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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>still devote themselves to Him and His gospel.

Proving that many people are just as stupid today as they were 2000
years ago.

>>>However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 
>
>>Immaterial, as I shall show below.
>
>How?

Let me repeat:  Its just as stupid to revere imaginary beings as it is
to fear them.

>>>recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
>>>conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?
>
>>If this question of yours made sense, I'd consider answering it, after
>>you did the courtesy of answering my questions.
>
>I'm sorry you were not able to understand the meaning of my question.
>I think you could have, if you tried.  I didn't proof read it enough,

I prefer not to guess when the meaning seems ambiguous.

>so here it is again -
>
>    Do you recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than 
>    yourself as a conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding 
>    to yourself?

It depends on what you mean by knowledge and understanding.  Certainly
I accept information from outside sources, but its validity is suspect
until it can be verified.  Some information cannot be verfied and cannot
be considered "truth".  Some information is received from multiple sources
along with procedures, which if performed, will validate the information
(this is a sign that the information is probably valid, as long as the
sources are independent).  Ultimately it is I who must determine the
validity of any particular bit of information, by employing empirical
methods or accepting other's descriptions of the methods they employed
to validate the information.  

>The point of the question was that it almost seems that you believe
>your views, as derived by your experience, are the only ones that count.

Certainly I assign more weight to my own experience, but that is not the
sole source of my understanding.

>>>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.

>>>>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.

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.

>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"?

>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 not be decieved - God is not mocked.
>
>>Oh, this is just too clever!  I have so many responses to choose from,
>>including:
>>
>>1. Of course it can't be mocked!  Its an imaginary being cooked up by
>>greedy lowlives to scare insecure pinheads into supporting the
>>greedy lowlives' slothful life styles.
>
>Why don't you use the pronoun He, instead of 'it'?

Well, I don't use "he" because it doesn't have a penis, and I don't capitialize
"it" because I do not worship, respect, fear, or revere it.

>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.

>>2. "Worship me puny humans, or I will cast you into the pit of flame
>>forever!"  Pretty good huh?  You should see it when I put on the fake
>>beard - I can almost hear god crying, "Mommy, Jimmy's mocking me!"
>
>Laugh, if you want - have your good time, for there is a time coming...

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.

>>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?  

>>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.

>>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.
>
>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.

>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.

>>>>Once I was single.  Now I am married.
>
>>>How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?
>
>>The State of New Jersey issued my marriage license.  God didn't
>>show up to sign it, the county clerk did.
>>
>>Oh yes, there was an amusing ceremony in which we all exchanged spit.
>>God didn't show up there either.  Although my niece (who was the
>>"flower girl") spent part of the time rolling about on the floor,
>>which was even more amusing than exchanging spit.
>
>Our flower girl spent much of the time rolling on the floor, too.
>We didn't know about it until later.

That's what flower girls are for.

>>Heck, god didn't even buy me a wedding gift.  Not that such a gift
>>would entail any big sacrifice by god, if it is the omnipotent
>>being  that every other bible-banger claims. A snap of the fingers
>>and "Poof!", his and her bath towels!
>
>>>do your wife agree?
>
>>She married me, didn't she?  Either we agree or we decided it wasn't
>>an important difference.  And I'm sure she finds me preferable to
>>some superstitous control-freak who thinks she should have no say
>>in whether she carries a pregnancy to term.
>
>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.

>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.

>>>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!
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28864 alt.politics.homosexuality:5180