From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Off Topic Topic
Keywords: maytag_repairmen?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:44:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.033306.18807@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> In article <n0d99t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
|> 
|> >DR> I do not consider Christians my enemy. I do, though,
|> >DR> consider Christianity my enemy. A greater evil one
|> >DR> would be hard pressed to find.
|> > 
|> >This is why Christianity so loves perverting sexuality, and
|> >making it something dirty and evil: they say that sex outside
|> >of marriage is "a sin," yet what if someone doesn't want to
|> >be married? Or is already married elsewhere? This guilt results
|> >in repression, which can cause a great deal of harm by being
|> >expressed in negative forms---- forms which in turn the individual
|> >is made to feel guilty about!
|> 
|> You have made the case for seeing Christianity as perverting
|> sexuality.  May I present an alternate viewpoint?  Let us say that
|> I buy something like a dishwasher.  With it comes an instruction
|> manual that tells me how to load it, tips for arranging the dishes
|> in an optimum way for cleaning, which settings to use and under
|> what circumstances, etc.  Now I can look at the instruction manual
|> and say, "This is just a bunch of meaningless regulation, I do not
|> want to be confined by it" and proceed to operate the dishwasher
|> in a manner contrary to the instruction mannual.  At best, the
|> dishes won't come out very clean, at worst I could break the
|> dishwasher.  And who was to blame?
|> 
|> Now Christianity sees human sexuality as a gift from God with the
|> purposes of procreation and the expression of love between a man
|> and woman.  It also includes a set of guidelines.  I suggest that
|> one shouldn't look at the guidelines as inhibiting natural or
|> creative behaviour, but as instructions for making the full use of
|> this precious gift of God.  Taken in that light, it does not seem
|> as threatening or unnatural.
|> 

(Hey, I'm disagreeing with the validity of his argument.  Does that allow
me to continue this thread in sci.skeptic?)

Oh, please.  I see a major problem with your argument; namely, you assume
that the Christian description of and guidelines for human sexuality are
like the dishwasher's instruction manual, in that each came from the
manufacturer.  As far as I know, humans have not been given an instruction
manual; rather, we've been given the tools (our brain, our senses, etc.)
to figure out how it works ourselves.  A better analogy would be to use a
dishwasher instruction manual written by your favorite religious leader.
I'd rather investigate how the dishwasher works, try some experiments
(carefully, of course), talk to others who've had dishwashers and had
success with them, and see what best works for me.

I'm not a religious scholar, but isn't sex outside of marriage explicitly
condemned by Christian teaching?  If so, that would be "threatening" to
me.  If not, I apologize for my ignorance.  Heck, I'll apologize anyway.

|> > 
|> >There is another major reason why I consider Christianity to
|> >be the enemy of humankind in general, and myself in particular.
|> >It places humans outside of nature, "created" as a special
|> >event instead of being a PART OF THE WHOLE that we are. The
|> >ideology that Earth was made for humans to "have dominion"
|> >over is ABOMINAL. This idea alone is greatly responsible for
|> >us crapping in our food and pissing in out water (that and
|> >greed).
|> 
|> I disagree with you.  It is true that Genesis states that God made
|> man the ruler over the earth and its inhabitants but this in no
|> way justifies us ruining our environment.  For which ruler would
|> be considered good if he slaughtered his subjects and made their
|> country uninhabitable.  No, any ruler has the obligation to rule
|> in the best interest of their subjects. If they don't, they
|> quickly gain a bad reputation.  In the same way, we all have a
|> responsibility to the stewardship that was given to us.  Taken in
|> that light, one cannot use Christianity as a scapegoat for
|> environmental problems.  I believe that you fingered it correctly
|> when you mentioned greed.  That people justify their greed by
|> (mis)quoting Scripture is surely not the fault of the religion. 
|> 

I'm sure that Christianity does not call for the rape of the land.  Can
you fill me in on how the Christian church responded publicly to
then-Secretary of the Interior Watt's comments about the relationship
between use of natural resources and The End Of The World?  I'd hope that
they viewed this as "justify[ing] ... greed by (mis)quoting Scripture",
as you state, and that they came out against it.  If not, I'd say that was
"the fault of the religion", or at least the spokesmen for it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic