From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:05:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan07.030017.4370@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1ictd2INNjbr@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.071254.4440@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan3.082328.11776@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>>>>Where was your god when a four-year old girl, who would hardly be able
>>>>to tell the difference, was suffering?  
>>>
>>>Right by her side.  Death is a result of sin, and happens from time to time
>>>and for various reasons in our fallen world.
>>
>>One more time, more   s l o w l y ...
>>(a) If the death AND SUFFERING of the four year old is a result of
>>her own sins, please explain what this four year old did
>>to deserve it.  I can't think of anything, and I have a 
>>busy imagination.
>
>Excuse me...John didn't say as a result of her own sins, rather
>than as the result of wrongdoing in general. All actions have 
>consequences - the consequences of the actions of the Nazis were
>manifested in deaths and SUFFERINGS of Allied soldiers and civilians
>[particularily those in, say, London or Leningrad] as well as the
>Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and others who
>SUFFERED and died in the death camps.  

Excuse me, but you deleted the second part of this message.
I was pointing out that either (a) the girl was suffering
because of her own sins, or (b) the girl was suffering 
because of the sins of her ancestors.  You conveniently deleted
part (b), thereby giving my posting a different meaning.

Above all, you have obviously missed the main point of the
entire message, which is that (according to xtian cosmology)
God created everything, including the rules of justice and
causality.  Given this fact, the girl's suffering is ultimately
the responsibility of the being who decided that A&E's "sin"
warranted death and suffering by all their descendents.

>>John, you've done it again - provided a better case study than
>>I could ever want.  The attitude you just expressed
>>is one of the hallmark reasons why I left xtianity.
>>It is quite normal for humans to grieve in the face
>>of death, suffering, and injustice.  
>
>Like how Jesus wept over Lazarus? or Jesus' reaction
>the night before he was killed? or how Mary cried over
>Jesus' feet? or how Jesus' followers mourned his death?

Well, in one gospel J's reaction to his own death appeared
quite human, like when he cried in despair at the very end.
However, J's reaction in John's gospel was that of a 
person who was totally in control of the situation,
very much like a Roman demi-god.  Since the gospels
contradict each other in many places, it is unclear
what you mean by Jesus' "reaction".

>>But xtianity encourages
>>psychological dissociation by blithely assuring its 
>>followers that seemingly Bad Things are actually
>>Good Things, or at least Unimportant Things.
>>So, don't face the pain, just shove it underground 
>>and quote a few scriptures, and all will be well.
>
>I've encountered a lot of shitheads who preach that. Some
>call themselves Christians, some call themselves Stoics,
>some call themselves realists, some call themselves atheists.
>I call them shitheads, which is A) more descriptive B) a
>common name.

All of the shitheads who have posted messages in alt.atheist
containing this attitude toward suffering refer to
themselves as "Christians".  Although my opinion of 
them is not high, they deserve better than being
called "shithead".

>>Real humans experience a full range of passions; xtianity
>>encourages a tepid blandness in the face of any joy
>>or misery.
>
>Like how David danced naked in joy before his god and cried
>over his sons' desertion? 

I was talking about an attitude expressed in this netgroup
which is encouraged by xtianity; responding with OT stories
is a non-sequitur.  Although, since you brought it up,
there have been occasional discussions on soc.religion.christian
about the Song of Soloman.  Most christians there seem to think
that it is not a passionate love poem (which it appears to be)
but rather describes an etherial relationship between
God and the Church.  This is another example of the
emotional mummification found throughout xtianity.

>Oh, I know quite a few churches where the "Christian culture"
>encourages such divorce from reality and emotions. I think it's
>because they're too frightened to admit that they aren't as
>"in touch with God" as they think...and not a little afraid of
>those emotions or really getting in touch with God or with 
>the possibility of pain and suffering. This is a "take-a-pill"
>society - headache, takeapill, pain, takeapill, spouse dumps
>you, takeapill.....

Our main difference on this point is that I see this
dissociation as central to xtianity, whereas you
apparently do not.  So we can leave it at that.


-- 

---  Overheard on talk.religion.misc:
"God would do nothing that wasn't for your own good even if
it involves pain.  There are times when we ask God to hit us
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc