From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Faith Healing
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:43:12 GMT

In article <n0e4ct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>JA-FSO> "Of course, because people can twist the definition of sin
>JA-FSO> to suit their purposes does not make it an invalid concept."
> 
>Sin: failure to follow the dicta of the rich, powerful, ruling elite,
>whom use the illusion of divine authorization. Do you have a better,
>valid definition? "Sin" is arbitrary, and subject to change without
>notice.

How about Sin: 1) A willful violation of some religious or moral principal.
	       2) Any wrong or evil act.

> 
>Sure. Most Christian churches think "homosexuality" is a "sin."
>This, however, is not about what is "right" and "wrong," but an
>issue of CONTROL. A few Christian churches consider abortion a
>"sin," but it is also an issue of control. That is why I likened
>most religions, and specifically Christianity, as a control-freak.
>Jerk a person's sexuality and watch them dance!

But you can say that about any moral precept.  To someone who has no
intentions of honoring it, it is just an issue of control.  To others,
it is God's way of showing us the best way to behave.

> 
>Breaking law is not sin!
> 
>We were (I was?) talking about "sin." People do not fail to kill
>others because it is a "sin;" they fail to do so because it is
>wrong to do so, or they fail to kill their neighbors because they
>fear retribution from the State or from the family / friends of
>the potentially dead neighbor.

We were talking about whether it is healthy to supress natural
desires which you stated that Christianity did and was therefore
unhealthy.  I merely pointed out that it is not only Christianity that
supresses natural desires but society as well.  Why do you not call it
unhealthy when society does it?

>JA-FSO> You have made the case for seeing Christianity as perverting
>JA-FSO> sexuality. May I present an alternate viewpoint? Let us say
>JA-FSO> that I buy something like a dishwasher. With it comes an
>JA-FSO> instruction manual that tells me how to load it, tips for
>JA-FSO> arranging the dishes in an optimum way for cleaning, which
>JA-FSO> settings to use and under what circumstances, etc. Now I
>JA-FSO> can look at the instruction manual and say, "This is just
>JA-FSO> a bunch of meaningless regulation, I do not want to be
>JA-FSO> confined by it" and proceed to operate the dishwasher in a
>JA-FSO> manner contrary to the instruction mannual. At best, the
>JA-FSO> dishes won't come out very clean, at worst I could break
>JA-FSO> the dishwasher. And who was to blame?"
> 
>Theist falsehood #1: "people as 'things,' such as a dishwasher."
>That's not what you meant, just what you implied. My concern is
>a human one. Life is not a machine.

Anti-theist falsehood #1: Take an analogy that was trying to
describe something, ignore the point of the analogy and find some
difference between the thing the author was trying to describe and
the object of the analogy.  Then proceed to label the analogy
false and useless.

> 
>Theist falsehood #2: "people come with instruction books." There
>is no instruction manual for human beings.

Anti-theist falsehood #2: Take things as literally as possible.  If you
mean that no one is born with an instruction booklet, I agree.  But that
is not what I was saying.

> 
>Theist falsehood #3: "all people can be, and should be, governed
>by one set of instructions." People come is all kinds, shapes,
>colors, paradigms, social structures, intelligences, knowledge
>bases, biases, etc. To force all peoples into a mold is what
>all tyrants try to do--- those who do not fit are removed.

Anti-theist falsehoold #3: There is no general guiding principal
that could govern a persons behaviour.  Let's see, we usually eat
when we are hungry and have food readily available.  We usually
drink when we are thirsty and have liquids readily available.  And
we all excrete when nature demands it of us.  Sounds like pretty
general principals guiding all people in the physical arena.  Why
couldn't there be spiritual precepts or guidelines in the
spiritual arena?

>--- Maximus 2.00


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19808 soc.culture.african.american:11253