From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Character Inversions
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:26:56

Who: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
ID: 1992Nov16.024312.22635@hfsi.uucp
 
Hi! Back for more wasted "bandwidth."
 
DR> "Sin: failure to follow the dicta of the rich, powerful,
DR> ruling elite, whom use the illusion of divine authorization.
DR> Do you have a better, valid definition? 'Sin' is arbitrary,
DR> and subject to change without notice.
 
JA-FSO> "How about Sin: 1) A willful violation of some religious
JA-FSO> or moral principal."
 
See, you agree with me (BIG Smile!). That is exactly how I defined
it above, only using different words. Religious or moral principals
are arbitrary, dicated by the ruling class. Morals are external
codes which modify behavior, and they need not be reasonable nor
rational, they need only CONTROL.
 
That's why I conduct myself ethically, not "morally." Ethics are
INTERNAL modifiers.
 
JA-FSO> 2) Any wrong or evil act.
 
Both events are arbitrary, depending on society, culture, and
time. Yesterday's duties are tomorrows evil acts.
 
DR> Sure. Most Christian churches think "homosexuality" is a "sin."
DR> This, however, is not about what is "right" and "wrong," but an
DR> issue of CONTROL. A few Christian churches consider abortion a
DR> "sin," but it is also an issue of control. That is why I likened
DR> most religions, and specifically Christianity, as a control-freak.
DR> Jerk a person's sexuality and watch them dance!
 
JA-FSO> But you can say that about any moral precept. To someone who
JA-FSO> has no intentions of honoring it, it is just an issue of
JA-FSO> control. To others, it is God's way of showing us the best
JA-FSO> way to behave."
 
Well, there's the problem. It isn't God dictating policy--- it is
people speaking for God dictating policy. God is irrelevant.
 
[cut for space]
 
JA-FSO> We were talking about whether it is healthy to supress
JA-FSO> natural desires which you stated that Christianity did
JA-FSO> and was therefore unhealthy. I merely pointed out that
JA-FSO> it is not only Christianity that supresses natural
JA-FSO> desires but society as well. Why do you not call it
JA-FSO> unhealthy when society does it?"
 
Because my biases and agenda (smile!). I admit it (no one here
would think otherwise). Many "natural traits" that society
suppresses -IS- harmfull, but someone here threw in the word
"sin" with has religious connotations, so I addressed that.
 
[major cut of "anti-theist lies 1 through 3" here. You are
right, and I was wrong in making the assertions I did.]
 
I feel that religions have the POTENTIAL to do much better
good in society, but they gravitate to harm (the "lowest
denominator" factor). This harm is based upon dictating to
other members of society instead of to themselves. It is so
much easier to tell another how to live ideally than to live
that life oneself. Christianity, the broad spectrum I observe,
addresses external concerns where they are not wanted and don't
always belong, instead of internal concerns which they CAN do
something about if they so choose--- this is where the concept
of "sin" is useful, because it helps control and externalize
the forces Christians find within themselves, but would rather 
see in others ("Character inversion").
 
I'd like to see this topic die off, or moved. However, perhaps
you would give a short list of valid "sins" (i.e. religious
dicta, not political agenda).
 
JA-FSO> John G. Ata - Technical Consultant |Internet: ata@hfsi.com
 
All the best,
D-rice

--- Maximus 2.00