From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Possible bases for taboos on anal sex (was Re: Homophobes...)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:23:50 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <nate.907@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>mork@shell.portal.com (James Paul Mork) writes:
>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>microparasitology it must indeed have sometimes seemed that the wages 
>>>of sin were death.

>> ...Following this premise, could it be that societies which adopted
>>   such actions as sins were more stable and more prone to long term
>>   success and proliferation.

>    That's certainly the conclusion that I would reach, however I would 
>also follow a little farther along that premise and note that under your 
>premise the definition of sin is something which was created by humans 
>and which evolved over the passage of time as some behaviors were observed 
>to place the individual or group in jeopardy. That sounds more like  
>secular humanism than the usual Judeo-Christian idea that sin is something 
>which was determined by the Almighty.

Many Judeo-Christian types believe that God gave these laws knowing about
the consequences of breaking them.

>>   Sin, the result of social evolution ?  Sin an evolved state ?

>    Correct. Evolved from countless generations of empirical observation 
>and speculations proposed by humans, the results apparently reaffirmed by 
>repeated mysterious mass die-offs which were only explicable at the time 
>as "Acts of God". 

Or acts of the Devil ;-)

>    Well, I would trace the roots of this movement back to the 1880's 
>when scientists like Koch and Pasteur began to discover some of the 
>microparasites which caused several major diseases. The next significant 
>step along the road was probably the development of antibiotics in the 
>1940s. At that point it became clear that disease was not simply an "Act 
>of God", and the contagion of disease was not simply punishment for sin.

You miss the point that believers in God would say "that is simply the
method he has used".  Just because you have found physical evidence of
some agent involved does not mean that God is not responsible for the
authorship of the situation.

>>   I'll stick with Judeo-Christian tradition thank you.  They figured  
>>   it out 3,000 years ago.  Others are condemned to repeat history...

>    They may have had some things figured out 3,000 years ago, but rather 
>than stick with what they had all worked out back then I'd say that it's 
>fortunate that our society has the ability and willingness to adapt and 
>establish new traditions to deal with new diseases like cholera (which was 
>apparently unknown outside India prior to the 1820's and 30's).

Hmm.  I recall something in the OT about how to keep your drinking water 
pure.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    !!! H A P P Y   H O L I D A Y S !!!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc