From: cadams@athena.cs.uga.edu (Clark Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.music.rush
Subject: For Russ Soule
Summary: Response to letter (reply bounced)
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:22:08 GMT
Organization: UGA, Atlanta Freethought Society



This message is for Russ Soule.


Sorry to clog band width with this, but my previous attempts at
e-mailing Russ Soule failed.

Thank You.













From cadams Sun Jul 19 21:01:21 1992
Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
To: cadams

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 Host sp1.ccd.harris.com not found for mailer tcp.
550 ras@sp1.ccd.harris.com... Host unknown
421 cbacc.cba.uga.edu: Host charon-mail.cba.uga.edu is down, will keep trying for 3 days

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received:  by athena.cs.uga.edu (4.1/25-eef)
	id AA22916; Sun, 19 Jul 92 21:00:03 EDT
From: Clark Adams <cadams>
Full-Name: Clark Adams
Message-Id: <9207200100.AA22916@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Subject: Re: There is no hope!!! Hope? I'll tell ya about hope...
To: ras@sp1.ccd.harris.com (Russell Soule)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 21:00:02 EDT
Cc: 7778ada@cbacc.cba.uga.edu
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]






Russ,

Here is a response to your message.  First of all, the reason I posted 
what I did to alt.music.rush is because I think that religious debates
are not in the least bit appropriate there.  A religious debate should
be in talk.religion.misc or by private E-mail.  I do not think most 
a.m.r readers like proselytizing in their newsgroup.  Many Rush
fans are athieists/agnostics/etc. and there is good reason to 
suspect that the members of the bands are as well.  I also do not 
think that evangelism is successful in a newsgroup like a.m.r 
and that it is in bad taste.  You see, 
religious dialogue, by its very nature, is divisive. 

First, disclaimer:  I do not want this to come to a flame-
fest, so I (unlike the Psalmist) will not resort to name calling, or
other forms of ad hominem arguments to support my case.

 
> Please take the time to read this response to your post in alt.music.rush.
> None of what I say here is said in anger or hatred to you or in defense of 
> myself regarding your response to my signature file. It is written out of 
> concern for your spiritual well-being 

Although concern is not necessary, the thought is appreciated.  I think that
concern for tolerance and diversity is more appropriate, though.

>and out of the love that I have in Christ
> Jesus my Lord. Please at least read it and if you have any questions or
> just a general response feel free to reply. Thank you.
 
> 
> > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >-      =              Jesus Christ is the answer.                    =    -
> > >=    =====         Now, what was your question again?              =====  =
> > >-      =                 --------------------                        =    -
> > >=      =            God doesn't believe in atheists                  =    =
> > >-      =  A fool says in his heart that there is no God (Psalm 14:1) =    -
> > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > 
> > "... anyone who sayest 'thy Fool' shall be in danger of hellfire."
> > (Matt 5:22)
> 
> You know, one of my pet peeves is people who take Bible verses out of context
> in order to support their view. 

Mine, too, but the Matt 5:22 verse was NOT taken out of context as I will
explain below.

> It bothers me when non-Christians do it to
> try to show Bible inaccuracies, and even more when Christians do it to try
> to make others agree with their point of view. But you know the problem with
> taking Bible verses out of context? It just doesn't work. It would be like
> trying to complete a mathematical proof by using only part of a theorem 
> (like using only the y^2 = x^2 part of the pythagorean theorem).
> 
> While I was surprised to see someone other than myself quoting the Bible in
> alt.music.rush, I was also concerned. For a moment I actually fell for your
> quote. I thought to myself, man, the Bible *does* say not to call someone
> a fool, and yet here it is calling atheists fools. But, fortunately, I went
> back and looked at the context from which you took your verse. So, before you
> go on thinking I am just another hypocritical Christian, or that you have
> found a counterdiction in the Bible, let me give you that context.
 
I'll address contradictions after I explain Matt 5:22.

> First off, this is a part of one of Jesus' first major sermons. He had just
> finished saying that he had come not to abolish the Old Testament law, but to
> fufill it. He then continued with a few examples of where he actually
> strengthend the law. Your quote is from the first such example. Let's start
> at the beginning of the paragraph from which you quoted, Matthew 5:21. Jesus
> says "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill;
> and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every
                                                      ^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^
> one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults
> his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says,'You fool!' shall
> be liable to the hell of fire."
 
> Now,this is what I gather from the whole context: Jesus is saying that whoever
> is angry enough with someone to insult him orcall him a fool is justas guilty 
> as the man who gets angry enough with someone to kill him. 

You are misreading the context.  I read this both in a KJV and then looked
it up in the Smith and Goodspeed (American) Translation.  The quote is 
not from the "first example" as you put it, but an example of where
Jesus was "making new laws". I recommend that you reread this passage
in other translations that are more lucid to modern American language.
This red letter quote is indeed a biblical
moral absolute.  When Jesus said this, he was not talking about OT stuff,
"But I say to you".  By a literalist interpretation, Jesus himself is 
in danger of hellfire because he (in Matt 23:17 and a few other
places) actually calls people fools.

As for contradictions, there are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) in the
bible.  For example compare the geneaologies of Jesus in Matt 1 and Luke 3,
in no way do the correlate.  Many apologists claim that one is through 
Mary and one is through Joseph, but they are obviously illiterate because
in both places it is explicit that the geneaologies are thourough Joseph.

> Now, my quote from
> the book of Psalms is not a quote made in anger towards atheists. It is simply
> a statement as to the foolishness of those who fail to recognize the existence
> of God. In Psalms 19 it says "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and
> the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech and night
> to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their 
> voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and
> their words to the end of the world." This psalm is saying that the very
> creation declares the glory of God. Psalm 14 simply wonders at those who
> fail or refuse to recognize this.
 
This is an example of both a circular and an ad hominem argument in the
bible.  Proving one passage of the bible with another, is logically invalid
especially to a non-Xian.  Also instead of proving the existence of 
the bible-god, the bible simply slanders those who are skeptical.  That is
like a scientist claiming to invent a perpetual motion machine and then
isntead of demonstrating it, calling skeptics "morons".


> > >  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >=                   Jesus Christ is the answer.                    =    =-=
> > But what is the Question??
 
> This is a xrn burp. I had something set wrong in my environment so it was
> trying to use an old copy of my sig file. It didn't tack it on until after
> I sent the message so I didn't figure it out until recently.
 
> As to your remark, if you'll look up at the top of this file you'll see the
> rest of the quote. The world is hungry for answers but will not find them
> until it turns its eyes back on Jesus. 

"Turns back to Jesus????"  The world has never been more than half (or 
anywhere near) Xian.  Also there are many people of other religions
who consider another god/dess the "answer".  Try debating with a Muslim.

> Right now this country is morally
> bankrupt and the government is doing nothing other than ignoring the very God
> this nation was founded on. 

Hold on a minute.  I think I must clarify some history.  The US was the 
first modern country NOT founded on a god.  The Constitution (the 
supreme law of the land) makes not one reference to any god.  The Declaration
of Independence refers to "Nature's God" -- a Deistical reference (it was
written by a non-Christian Deist, Thomas Jefferson).  In fact, during the 
1790's we signed a treaty with Tripoli that says "the US is in no way
founded on the Christian religion".  Treaties are as binding as the 
Constitution unless they are revoked.  The treaty of Tripoli has never
been revoked.

As for "morally bankrupt", there have been people in almost every period
in history who claimed that their society was morally bankrupt.  Every
person has a different concept of morality and ethics.  While I grant 
you that modern society has problems, it is pessimistic to say that
it is bankrupt.

> I am convinced that if this nation turned back
> to being the Christian nation it was when it was up until the 20th century,
> that many of our problems would be quickly solved. 

Re history lesson above.  The US is not now, was never, and without
abolishing the Constitution, can never be a Xian nation.

> You see, we used to have
> the blessings of God. 

What blessings?  The only non-man-made help we had was fertile soil and 
an abundance of natural resources (many of which greedy people have 
exploited).  Other than that, people, not gods, made the US what it was. 

> We enjoyed military success in our wars. 

Are you saying that the Civil War and our pillage of Mexico were military
successes?  Also military successes and failures are determined by people
not gods.

> We lead the
> world in technological advances as well as advances in most other fields of
> study. 

Again, human accomplishments.  

> And all the while we were considered a Christian nation. 

By whom?

> But now we
> don't even allow the 10 commandments to be posted in schools as simply a moral
> guideline. 

My sermon beginneth:  there is no correlation between ethics/morals and
religiosity.  While there are a great many ethical religionists (some
of my best friends), there are also many religionists who are not
ethical (Hitler, Tourquemada, Ted Bundy, etc.).  There are also a 
great many ethical non-religionists (most people who know me would
put me in this category).  Also, everyone's ethos is different.  Laws 
are established to make sure peoples' ethoses don't conflict.

As for the Ten Commandments, they are religious and not ethical.  They 
do not belong in PUBLIC schools any more than Qu'ran's or Upanishads'
religious imperatives.  Also, most of the Ten Commandments are not 
applicable to non-Xians, especially the first 3.  Granted, "Thou
shall not kill/steal" are essential , they are not rooted in the
Ten Commandments and are followed by most people with a conscience
and common sense.

> So we have children growing up with no moral basis and our nation
> continues its decline.
 
Re above.  The main reason for the US "decline" is economic.  It is 
a very complicated issue.  However, the US is not declining in 
every area.  There are many areas where the US is in pretty good 
shape.

> This country is following exactly in the footsteps of Israel of the Old
> Testament. When Israel turned to God, they received blessings and they
> prospered. But then they became self-sufficient (or so they thought) and
> they turned from God. That began their decline. Occassionally they would
> return to God, and He would forgive them and accept them. But then they
> turned away again. Eventually they turned so far away that they didn't
> turn back. They were conquered and spent 70 years in exile. This is, by the
> way Israeli history, not just Biblical nonsense as some people call it.
> When they finally turned back to God, he blessed them again and they were
> released from exile and rebuilt their nation.

As I do not have time to research Israeli history, I'll assume the 
scenario valid.  However, I would deny any supernatural intervention.
The US future is in its (and the rest of the world's) hands.

> America is following in the same footsteps.  We have turned from God.
> We worship money or ourselves. 

I don't worship anything or anyone (and I don't think anyone worships me).

> We murder unborn children. 

I assume you are referring to abortion.  However, it is not murder (murder,
by its definition requires malice aforethought).  I do agree that we should
(by education and contraception) curb the number of unwanted pregnancies.
However, taking away a woman's right to control her own body is not the
answer (even if that means killing a non-viable fetus).  BTW, although
it really doesn't matter, there is nothing in the bible prohibiting
abortion.

> We have a major drug problem.

Agreed.

> We have AIDS, which stems from the sexual promiscuity in this country (it
> seems that herpes, and all the other venereal diseases weren't a big enough
> hint). 

No.  AIDS stems from the HIV virus.  It is just spread by sexual contact.
That's like blaiming botulism on eating. 

> We have major economic problems. 

Agreed (re above).

> We have three canidates for president
> that no one really wants. 

The US has almost never (with a few exceptions) had presidential candidates
that everyone wanted.

> We are in debt beyond belief. Need I go on? Did we
> have those things 100 years ago? No! 

We had other problems.  100 years ago there was another Russ Soule saying
the same things about America in the 1890's (with bible in hand).

> We were a more Godly nation then, and
> God blessed us.

Tell that to a Black man or woman in the late 19th century, or a child working
in a coal mine for fourteen hours a day, or an Indian whose land had just
been taken, or a woman who wanted to vote.  Need I go on?

You see, you are expressing a sentimental view of history.  You only point
out the good part of yesteryear while doing the exact opposite for today.
This is both harmful and biased.

> So that is why I so boldly proclaim the Jesus Christ IS the answer, regardless
> of the question.

You still haven't said what the "Question" is.

> > "[MY] mind is not for rent to any god or government"
 
> I'll bet you know the lyrics to Freewill backwards and forwards.
> That is one of the big reasons people reject God. 

No it is not.  I "reject" the bible-god in the same way that you "reject"
Zeus, Quetzcoatl, Ishtar, Allah, and Kabuki the Cabbage God.  I feel that
none of them has been proven to exist, and as the burden of proof
falls on one making an assumption (especially an outrageous assumption).
If any G/god/s did exist, I would be the first one to believe in him/her/
it/them.  "Freewill" (both the concept and the Rush song) has nothing to 
do with it.

> They say that if they believe in a god they
> will lose their free will. 

Who the hell are "they".   I know well over 100 atheists/agnostics/humanists/
rationalists/etc. and have never heard this.  Also, with all due respect, 
I do not think you know what "free will" is and are confusing it with 
civil liberties.  Free will is a complex philosophical concept whose
opposite is determinism.  (For the record there are both theists and
non-theists on either side).  It basically means that one is INTERNALLY
in control of all of his/her choices.  I recommend that you look it
up in a philosophical encyclopedia.

> Well, do you have free will now? No, you certainly
> do not. Yes people use drugs, sleep with prostitutes and pretty much do as
> they see fit to do (that's straight out of the books of Judges which is part
> of the history of Israel). But a lot of the things we do are illegal. So yes
> you may still do it, but one day you may get caught and thrown in jail. (No
> I am NOT implying that you are a druggie of sleep with prostitutes. Please
> don't assume that.)So do we really have the free will we claim to have? 

If we are talking about "free will" the above paragraph makes absolutely 
no sense.  I think you mean a libertine existence or one that is 
based on absolute liberty.  You also exaggerate.  I do feel that laws
are necessary for a productive society, but I think that we should 
have as few restrictions as possible on civil liberties.  I think 
that you will find this philosophy similar to Jefferson and Madison. 

BTW, I have never used drugs, nor have I ever paid for (or charged for)
sex.

> I have
> read in alt.music.rush that Neil Peart is anti-establishment. If he is it is
> probably because he sees even government as restricting absolute free will.
> Do you reject government as readily as you reject God? 
 
I do not think "reject" is an appropriate word.  I feel that gov't is necessary
but that it is too big in its current state.  I don't know if I could
be considerd "anti-establishment" but there are changes to be made (modified)
in the current establishment.

> You know, if the world cared less about themselves and more for their fellow
> man, we wouldn't be in as bad of shape as we are now. 

Agreed to an extent.  I also think people should act more rationally.

> Constantly striving for
> your own free will often causes us to reject our fellow man. It is the "Me"
> attitude. But if we adopted the "Them" attitude, and loved our neighbor as
> much or more than we love ourselves this would be a friendlier world. In my
> city, the businesses downtown are upset because a soup kitchen is moving into
> their neighborhood.They say, sure, feed the poor, but not in MY backyard. That
> is too often the case. We say on the surface we care about our fellow man, but
> when it comes down to it, we would rather let someone else take care of them
> somewhere else.

I agree with most of your sentiment in the above paragraph, but "free
will" isn't the phrase you are looking for. 

> Jesus'fundamental teaching was to love God with all our hearts,souls, strength
> and mind. And to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we followed this simple
> philosophy, then there would be no more pressing questions to have answers
> to. 

I would have to disagree with this one, though.  First of all, loving a 
god has nothing to do with how one treats his/her fellow man.  Secondly,
Jesus didn't always preach the love you refer to.  For example, in 
Luke 14:26, Jesus said "If any man come to me and HATE not his father,
and his mother, and his brethren, and, yea, his own life, he can not
be my disciple."  How does this fit in with loving others?  Do you 
hate your family and yourself?  Are you a disciple of Jesus?  BTW,
this verse is not out of context and the word "hate" is the Greek word 
"misa" (sp?) which means "hate or despise". 

As a humanist, I can think of better philosophies that help people 
get along.  Personally, I don't "love" my neighbors, I reserve
love for people much more personal to me.  However, I respect them and
am tolerant of them no matter how different they are from me. 

> Jesus Christ IS the answer.
 
No, he isn't.

> Do you want to know how you can receive the peace that I have in these
> troubling times? 

You mean the same peace that I have now as an atheist humanist?

> It is in the very pages of the book from which you quoted
> earlier.

When I read the bible, peace was the furthest thing from my mind.  How can 
the following verses give one peace.  (I especially emphasize  ones 
about hell.  How can one have peace knowing that most of his friends
will be in eternal agony?):
Matt 10:34, Luke 12:4, Matt 26:52, Malachi 2:3, Isaiah 45:7, Exodus 32:27,
Luke 12:47, Isaiah 36:10-12, Ezekiel 23, Exodus 20:5, Deut 24:16,
2 Kings 18:27, Lamentation 3:38, Psalm 137:9.

These are just a few examples of why the bible is not a good book.
Frankly, it should have a warning label and should only be given
to children if they have their parents' consent.

> Give your life over to Jesus Christ and you *will* receive blessings
> from God, which this world is desperately in need of.

My life is my own.  I can't give it to anyone.  I have never expected
any blessing from any gods.  I think that, for the most part, my
future is in my own hands.

> Thank you for your time. I pray that you will consider my words with an open
> mind and heart, and not just turn them away.

I did.  I expect you to reciprocate.

RATIONALLY Yours,
Clark Adams cadams@athena.cs.uga.edu

"I have always strenuously supported the right of every [wo]man to his
own opinion.  He who denies to another this right makes a slave of 
himself to his present opinion because he precludes himself the
right to change it.  The only weapon against errors of every kind is
reason.  I've never used any other and I trust I never shall." --
Thomas Paine, forward to "The Age of Reason" 

P.S.  Do you have any suggestions of how I can get my responses to you?
Newsgroups: alt.music.rush