From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:51:12 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

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.

I said that the fear, in this case, is to be understood as reverence for
the Supreme God of the Universe.

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
still devote themselves to Him and His gospel.

>>However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 

>Immaterial, as I shall show below.

How?

>>recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
>>conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?

>If this question of yours made sense, I'd consider answering it, after
>you did the courtesy of answering my questions.

I'm sorry you were not able to understand the meaning of my question.
I think you could have, if you tried.  I didn't proof read it enough,
so here it is again -

    Do you recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than 
    yourself as a conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding 
    to yourself?

The point of the question was that it almost seems that you believe
your views, as derived by your experience, are the only ones that count.

>>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 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.

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
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.

So I ask you, have you really advanced?????

>>Do not be decieved - God is not mocked.

>Oh, this is just too clever!  I have so many responses to choose from,
>including:
>
>1. Of course it can't be mocked!  Its an imaginary being cooked up by
>greedy lowlives to scare insecure pinheads into supporting the
>greedy lowlives' slothful life styles.

Why don't you use the pronoun He, instead of 'it'?

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.

>2. "Worship me puny humans, or I will cast you into the pit of flame
>forever!"  Pretty good huh?  You should see it when I put on the fake
>beard - I can almost hear god crying, "Mommy, Jimmy's mocking me!"

Laugh, if you want - have your good time, for there is a time coming...

>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.

>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.

>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.

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
realized that the opportunity is there for you not to get it in
the end and this opportunity is available to ALL who believe.

>>>Once I was single.  Now I am married.

>>How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?

>The State of New Jersey issued my marriage license.  God didn't
>show up to sign it, the county clerk did.
>
>Oh yes, there was an amusing ceremony in which we all exchanged spit.
>God didn't show up there either.  Although my niece (who was the
>"flower girl") spent part of the time rolling about on the floor,
>which was even more amusing than exchanging spit.

Our flower girl spent much of the time rolling on the floor, too.
We didn't know about it until later.

>Heck, god didn't even buy me a wedding gift.  Not that such a gift
>would entail any big sacrifice by god, if it is the omnipotent
>being  that every other bible-banger claims. A snap of the fingers
>and "Poof!", his and her bath towels!

>>do your wife agree?

>She married me, didn't she?  Either we agree or we decided it wasn't
>an important difference.  And I'm sure she finds me preferable to
>some superstitous control-freak who thinks she should have no say
>in whether she carries a pregnancy to term.

You didn't really answer my question - does your wife agree?  Does
she have any religious beliefs?  If she doesn't want to carry here
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?

>>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.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |