From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Summary: This is getting pointless
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:41:12 GMT

Malcolm, I may have to bring this discussion to an end, because I
do not sense any sense of progress here.  As Simon noted in a.a.,
you are parroting the right answer but do not notice that your
overall response is incoherent and self-contradictory.  Furthermore,
since your statements assume things that cannot be proved, we have
little common ground.  I also sense you ignore some very big
problems that I raised. 

Continuing this discussion without real intellectual involvement on
your side, which I did not see in this latest post, is a waste of
everyone's time.  We are not speaking the same language!

If you have anything to comment beyond "Jesus is Lord" I welcome
your response.  Your last article was extremely dissatisfying
because I felt you ignored some important issues that I raised.

Finally, please stop typing long lines without carriage
returns.  It makes it hard to read your articles, especially
when you are quoted.

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >|>
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >|> >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >|> >|>
Malcolm: >|> >|> >

>No, I was not raised in a Christian household though I had previously attended
>one or two services at long interspaced intervals (years) out of courtesy to
>someone more than anything else.

You ignore the entire issue of how your childhood background could
resonate with your current Christian environment.  Since your give
so little explanation here, there is nothing to say.  But I am
suspicious of your evasion.

>|> Ah, so the crux of the matter is that your friends were too tied up
>|> in their own interests.  This sounds to me that you were seeking a
>|> community and did not find it among your previous group because they
>|> were too "caught up in their own interests."  Abraham Maslow, the
>|> famous sociologist, states that the need for community is so strong
>|> that without it most people will choose to die.  You found the 
>|> community in the Church, that's all.  The people there showed an
>|> interest in you, and you needed a community to accept you.
>|> 
>I was not ignored by my friends because we still did things together.  They were 
>not going through the same dilemmas that I was trying to tackle at the time.  
>Death was among the least of their interests and any attempts to broach the 
>subject were met with abject frivolity.  "Nobody lives forever."  "Do you want
>to live forever?"  Well, as a matter of fact, I do.

You misunderstood me when I referred to your friends being too tied
up.  Yes, they gave of their time, but your concerns and theirs were
different, and you needed a group with the same interests.  You do
not even consider the possibility that you are comfortable with 
a Christian group because they met a human need rather than a
divine one.  This is one example of your lack of thought in answering
the last post.

>|> The DANGER in this is that these people took you in because it is
>|> their directive to "bring new sheep into the fold."  Inotherwords,
>|> they did it not because you are a special and unique person with
>|> qualities to benefit the group, but because the group is out to
>|> take in anyone who shows an interest.  This is the same technique
>|> that Reverend Moon's Unification Church uses on young people, and
>|> it is called "love-bombing."
>|>
>Quite the contrary, we are told by the Bible that each and every one of us is
>a vital part of the body of Christ.  Each of us has his or her own talents as 
>given by God and that only as a family do we make up the whole and complete
>body of Christ with Jesus as the head.

Again, you ignore the issue of the psychological harm of a group that
seeks new converts for the sake of new converts, no matter who they
are, and no matter whether their teachings are correct, or even
healthy.  Instead, you only respond to one statement about whether
your own uniqueness is appreciated, and again, you parrot the 
answer rather than think about it.
 
>|> The DANGER in this is should you have any doubts in the premises
>|> of the group, they will drop you lot a hot brick.  (Not immediately,
>|> but if your doubts persist after heavy prayer sessions.)  This
>|> is the danger to your mental health, because the community will
>|> only allow you to express the community line, and not your own
>|> true beliefs.  Back to Maslow, the need for self-expression is
>|> not as important as the need for community, so you may not come
>|> to that point quickly, if at all.  But Maslow's Hierarchy of
>|> Needs has its pinnacle in self-actualization, and the Christian
>|> Evangelical lifestyle and belief is in total opposition to this.
>|> Therefore, you cannot be a psychologically healthy individual,
>|> because you are caught down in rungs two and three and never make
>|> it to the top.
>|>
>The Christian community accepts that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.  He is the
>only way to the Father.  Anyone who does not believe this, is not a Christian.
>Other matters of Church politics, and there are such, are matters that do not
>affect my faith in God.  Wherever you have people, you will have politics.  The
>centerpiece of the Christian "community line" is Jesus Christ.  If I were to
>reject Jesus, I would expect my brothers and sisters to reject me.  But it is not
>something done as easily as said.  As you mentioned, there will be a lot of 
>prayer and time spent.  These things will be done out of love and for no other
>motivation but love.  I have seen it in action and been a part of it.

You confirm my statement, and again ignore the real harm that this
belief system does.  If you question that party line, you are no
longer part of the group.  The need for community overrides your
throught processes, and I said this was a bad thing.  You did not
comment on this at all.

>And as for my own "true beliefs", I truly do believe that Jesus is the Son of
>God.  He is Lord and Saviour.

You believe that now.  If you should doubt it, you lose your new
friends.  MY FRIENDS would not leave me if I disagreed with them
on a matter of personal belief.  I don't ever have to worry about
losing them for fear of telling the truth on these issues.

>|> Read what I said above about the need for community.  It is dangerous
>|> to not rely on others.  But my objection here is that your new
>|> community may demand you sever ties with non-believers.  If your
>|> family doesn't believe, you are either to work on bringing them into
>|> the fold, or renounce them.  I believe renouncing one's family is
>|> very unhealthy, unless you were unfortunate enough to grow up with
>|> abusive parents.
>|>
>I've been a Christian for 6 years and I've managed to keep ALL of my family
>and friends.  Renouncing families?  Not from what I've been a part of.  Quite the
>contrary, I've been encouraged to keep my ties to unsaved family and friends,
>even if they continually reject the message that I would present to them.  The
>Christian family is NOT an exclusive club.  It's open to everyone.  The only
>price to pay is your sin.  I also believe that renouncing your family is
>unhealthy, not to mention unhappy.  That is why I will not renounce the family
>of God.

This is an example of how you do not understand what the discussion
is.  You change the meaning of the word "family" to a meaning I did
not give.  Do you deny that some Xian groups encourage members to
renounce their families if they will not believe?  It is true, yet
you do not comment on this.  I am glad that you have not been told
to do this.  If you were asked to, would you? 

>|> Do you think it is mentally healthy to rely of "God's" strength if
>|> there is no such thing?  What would you think of a 30-year-old who
>|> still believed in Santa and the Tooth Fairy?  You and I know these
>|> don't exist, that is acceptable for young children to believe this,
>|> but not for adults.  Atheists believe it is just as unhealthy to
>|> believe in an unverifiable being such as your "God."
>|>
>I rely on God because He is stronger than me.  I know myself better than you do.
>I know my weaknesses and I know my failings.  There are some things that I have
>tried to do and have failed and failed miserably at.  But, having since been
>saved, He has enabled me to do these things.  What sort of things do you ask?
>Public speaking for one.  I used to be one of those who could not speak in front
>of a crowd of people.  Call it a psychological fear or what have you.  But God
>has allowed me to overcome this and testify about Him before many others.  I still
>have a ways to go, but I still learning from Him.  No Santa or Tooth Fairy ever
>did as much for me.  This is a REAL change.  I did not imagine God did this and He
>is NOT going to go away.

But you have yet to demonstrate that your God is real, and it is
insulting to insist I believe in your invisable friend just because
you say so.  We indulge children in this, but when adults do so,
we know they are a little touched in the head.

You also have yet to demonstrate that any of these changes came
from a god rather than from a stronger sense of who you were.
Furthermore, support from a community better explains your new
strength in public speaking than this "strength of god" stuff.

You see, Malcolm, each instance you give can be better explained
by the rational world.  Just because Santa or the Tooth Fairy didn't
do "as much for [you]" does not negate the possibility that you are
misleading yourself.  

You do not answer my question: If the God you believe in does not
exist, does that not mean you are deluded?  I sense you do not
even consider the possibility, even though it is a very real one. 
 
>|> You say you have felt the "strength of God."  What if you felt your
>|> own sense of self and simply misdefined it?  Again, I ask you read
>|> Jung and Joseph Campbell, as they have a lot to say about the human
>|> mind and the search for mysticism.
>|> 
>My own self-worth?  Maybe I did not feel very worthy.  But I certainly did come
>to know my own worth when I realized that God loved me first before I even knew
>Him.  God created me.  He gave to me all the abilities that I have, all the
>talents that I have.  As a result, all that I am I owe to Him.  You can read
>all the books you want, but what I believe in has come from first-hand experience.
>And yes, I know, the Bible is a book too.  However, it is more than a mere book; 
>it is the Word of God.  No theories or conjecture.  It is the Truth.  I know you
>don't accept it as being so.  That is your call and you are free to make that choice.  I have to respect your choice.  God does.

Each time I ask you to look into an area beyond your ken, you
ignore my request with more "God-stuff."  I have read the Bible,
too, and thought it was a silly book to run one's life after.
Personally, I think Orson Scott Card (who is a Mormom, by the
way), gave a far better explanation of why there is Evil in
the world despite the presence of a Good Creator in _The
Worthing Saga_.  Anyone can make a religion out of a book.
You can do it with _The Lord of the Rings_, too.  It doesn't
mean a word in it is true.

And you cannot demonstrate that the Bible is the Word of God,
so it is silly to tell me this.

>|> I believe you have ignored the issue I brought up here.  Perhaps I
>|> did not explain myself clearly enough.  Christianity has led to
>|> a lot of sexual repression and abuse.  There is less of this among
>|> Jews and Hindus, because their religions do not have a "Satan" making
>|> sex dirty.  That is my objection: we are sexual beings, and the
>|> Christian teachings puts the believer at odds with his or her own
>|> body.  You speak of having to "control" your sexuality.  This is another
>|> double bind.
>|> 
>The Christian teachings reveal the depths of our carnal nature.  It does not
>deny it.  Throughout the Bible, it teaches to restrain from sexual immorality.
>There are carnal acts that the Bible does not condone, among them are bestiality
>and necrophilia.  These adverse desires are part of our carnal nature.  Are you
>saying that we should be more in tune with our carnal nature and let these sorts
>of feelings come to the forefront?  I would assume that this is NOT what you
>meant.  I would not insult you in this way.  The point that I'm trying to make is
>that not all desires of the flesh were intended for us by God.  We were meant to
>be a monogamous race, one man for one woman.  Sex is meant to be an expression of
>love and an act of life-giving between two mates.

Again, you confirm what I say is a problem inherent in Christian
teachings: the mind/body duality.  You give the worst examples of
how sex can be abused, but I see nothing "dirty" about sex between
loving adults.  Christianity puts further restrictions on it, they
must be married, no gay sex, no premarital sex.  End result: guilt
over a perfectly natural desire.  How would you feel if I told you
to join my community you must eat as little as possible because
food is the tool of the devil?  Pretty silly, huh?  But that is
what Christianity does with the sex drive.

You also made no comment on the very real problems Christianity
causes with sexuality.  The rampant sexual abuse in Christian
households and among the clergy is real.  But you do not comment
on this at all.  Why are these problems not found so much among
other religions?  I tell you, it is because your teachings are
contrary to mental health and CAUSE sexual problems.
>
>|> As to using your gifts, your statement "yes, as given by God" says
>|> that you will not use them for your, or society's best uses, but
>|> as you are instructed by the Church.  This, once again, is dangerous,
>|> because you are denying your abilities in any way you are 
>|> instructed to. 
>|>
>God has given me my abilities and talents and to make the best use of them in
>His service.  I still pay my taxes. Giving my money to the Church, I don't consider a waste of funds.  Our Church is Protestant.  We don't spend our funds on stained glass windows or golden chalices.  But we do visitations to sick friends and relatives and provide rides to people who don't have cars.  Or if someone needs help cleaning their yard or moving their furniture and stuff to a new home, we are there.  Do you consider these things contrary to God's will?  Do you consider these things to be a detri

m
>ent to society?  I obey God.

Again, you ignore the issue I raise.  You have a hangup about icons in
Churches, which has zero to do with my concerns.  My issue is psychological
health; my contention is that Christianity is at odds with it.  Most
of your responses IGNORE THIS COMPLETELY!

Why do you ask me such a question as "Do you consider these things
contrary to God' will?"  I have no belief in your god whatsoever, so
why would I care what you believe in for or against what you think
it's will is?  You keep losing sight of the discussion: I THINK
CHRISTIANITY IS BAD FOR A PERSON'S MENTAL HEALTH.

>I didn't realize how much fuss my sign-off moniker would invoke.  The essence
>of what I am expressing in those four words is this:  It is God that loves and it
>is Man that kills all that God loves.  God gave us His Son.  Men crucified him.
>God gave us His love and we've tried to kill that.  God gave us life and we 
>kill each other.  Yes, I am part of mankind.  And I am a killer, like all of
>mankind.  It is in my nature.  I don't hate myself for it because I know that 
>there is a way out.  God has shown me a better way.  Besides, God loved me 
>first and loved me more than I could myself.

This goes back to what I said a few posts ago: Christianity is bad
for your mental health because you require EXTERNAL validation;
without it you are bad.  You have just confirmed this: you said
you (as part of Man) is a killer and only God can get you out
of this state of sin.

This is NOT HEALTHY!

>|> How do you know you could not love another person without "God's
>|> love?"  Your claim is untestable.  I love another person and am
>|> not aware of this.  Are you saying I do not love this person?
>|> 
>I've had other relationships and they did not work out.  I did not know what
>real love was.  But it was not until I knew of God's love, that I was able to love
>myself and love another.  Of course, I'm not talking about the frivilous "love"
>of a one-night stand (which I call lust rather than love).  God taught me a
>sacrificial form of love that you give to another unconditionally and unendingly.
>It is a love meant to last an eternity.  In human terms, that type of love is not
>comprehensible.  I can only try to emulate that type of love but having seen it in
>the example of Jesus Christ.
>
>I am sure that you are capable of love (No insult intended).  God's love is a
>love so strong that He would knowingly send His own Son to die for us even 
>though we despised.  That is the kind of love I am referring to.

This is really frustrating, Malcolm.  What is the point of having a
discussion when I ask you a question and you do not answer it?

I asked you if you are saying that I do not love my boyfriend.
You allude to one-night stands and lust, and then talk about religious
love, agape, which is something else entirely.  And I have read
M. Scott Peck's _The Road Less Travelled_; I agree with his concept
of love, and I do not believe it requires a "god" in order to love
another.
>
>|> >From what you've read so far, Maddi, do you conclude that I am a happier person
>|> >now than when I was before?  Has Christianity benefitted me, do you think?  Or
>|> >am I better off never having known God at all?
>|> 
>|> I do believe Christianity has benefitted you in the short run.  I
>Thank you.
>
>
>|> do not know what the long run will bring.  I feel that Christianity
>|> as a social institution has done a lot of harm, both in the past and
>|> in the present.  I mentioned some of the problems of Christianity,
>|> in particular, sexual repression, intolerance, refusal to accept
>|> other belief systems in a multi-cultural society, which leads to
>|> social polarity.  Christianity has brought the dumbing-down of
>|> our science curriculum, which has hurt our country's ability to
>|> compete on a global level.  It has brought rampant overpopulation
>|> because many Christian groups oppose birth control.  It has 
>|> destroyed the ability of many adherents to think for themselves.
>|> It has destroyed families in some congregations, where adherents
>|> are told to reject non-believers.
>|> 
>God gave us His Word.  We're not very good at doing what we're told.  And more
>than once, men have used the Christian name to further their own ends.  I say to
>you, look past the stained glass windows and the high steeples.  Look past the
>facade of human politics in religion and seek out the one and only God.

What is this hangup you have about church steeples?  Why don't you
address the issues I raise?

>I am a Computer Scientist and my faith has not "dumbed-down" my education.  

You miss the point.  Christians insist on teaching Creationism as
science, get good science curricula banned because this would lead
to children questioning their faith, and so on.  To be a good
scientist, a person must know how to use logic, how to see through
assumptions, and ought to question everything.  Needless to say,
this is in opposition to Christianity.

You keep replying
to me in terms of your specifics rather than on a global level, and
I don't know if you do so out of naivete or deliberate side-stepping.
Think back to the Pat & Pat show at the Republican National 
Convention.  Those are the Christians I am referring to who want to
dumb down our science program.

>Over-
>population occurs in countries where there is little Christian faith.

This is a selfish view.  The world, period, is overpopulated.  We could
have the resources to feed everyone but we waste them.  Christian concepts
encourage this waste.  Further more, you ignore the whole issue of
birth control, which many Christian sects oppose.  Your statement
that overpopulation occurs where there is little Christian faith is
a non sequitur; it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it has nothing
to do with the discussion.  (I also suspect it is false.)

> And is
>Christianity to blame for the plight of the poor?  The poor were there before
>Jesus came down and as He said, "You will always have the poor among you".
>Destroyed families?  Not mine, even though most members of my family are not
>saved and may never be saved.  I have to accept that, God does.   

I blame Christianity for hatred and intolerance, and you did not address
these issues at all.

>|> Christianity has also brought some good.  However, I firmly believe
>|> that the good it has brought is also provided by other religions
>|> and philosophies.  Therefore, one the whole, I believe Christianity
>|> causes more harm, and should be supplanted by a healthier system.
>
>I think you're giving God a bad rep for the way that mankind has screwed up
>trying to carry out His commands.  God gave us the earth to use and abuse and
>we have done far more of the latter as I'm sure you'll agree.  Even the Christian
>religion as it is today with its hundreds of denominations was not God's
>original intent.  It only illustrates the degree to which we've misinterpretted
>His meaning.

Cut it out.  I am not giving your god a rap on anything.  My issue
is with a human invention, Christianity.  The sheer number of denominations,
each claiming to have the right interpretation of "God's Word" ought to
give you a hint that people can seriously disagree on interpretation.
So how can you be so sure your interpretation is correct?

>Put all of that aside.  What really matters is whether or not Jesus Christ is
>your personal Lord and Saviour.  Look past the religion and seek out God.

Doesn't matter a whit to me.  You want to believe in your Invisible
Friend, you go right ahead.  Meanwhile, I still think you religion
is bad news, and I have a ton of evidence to support that view.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.