From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:24:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

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? :-)

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,
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.

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.

God has freedom as His plan for those who come to know Him and His Son.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.  God has
not given us the spirit of fear, but of truth, love, and a sound mind.

>>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?

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.

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?

>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.

>>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.

[...]
>>>>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?  

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.

>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?

>>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?

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

>>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?

>>>>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.  

[>>>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.

>>>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 
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.

>>>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.

>>>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.

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

>>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.

>>>>>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.

>>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.

>>>>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.

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

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion