From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Fantasies vs. Ethics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:00:27 GMT

	I've been reading this thread with some amusement, and I admit
I've skipped an article or five when they looked like they weren't
breaking any new ground.  However, I found ample areas for commment in
this one.  I'll try to keep it short.

linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

>>In particular, read Mark 5 in which Jesus casts out the "Legion" 
>>of demons and sends it/them into a nearby herd of swine, thereby 
>>curing a "possessed" human individual of physical and mental disease.  
>>The passage is significant, imho, because it clearly treats 
>>souls/spirits/demons (aka minds) as extrinsic properties, rather than 
>>intrinsic properties, of human and animal beings.  

	I see a minor point that needs to be addressed.  Demons, spirits,
and souls are different, and do not equate to minds in all cases.  For
example, the human soul is not the thinking part, but it is the spiritual
part, or the essence of the person.  The brain is the thinking part.
Thus, demons and spirits can inhabit the body of anything living, but
this does not mean the living thing need have a soul.  This is only
relevant if you believe it, of course.

>Why wouldn't I believe in the literal accuracy of this passage?  I have
>already said I believe in God and the Bible.  

	You believe literally a book of parables, examples, and outright
stories?  Do you believe the story of Hansel and Gretel is true, or do
you merely think it a story used to make a point?  I don't have my
Bible handy, but my reading has shown that many of the tales presented
therein were probably true, and a great many others most likely false
but used to make a point.  I don't believe God made the world in six
24-hour days, but if I took it "literally" that is what it says.  For
that matter, God may have created man in his own image by making an
ape and letting it evolve.  "Literal" translations don't allow this, but
I find it one way of reconciling scientific and theological differences.

>You mean you think I have little respect for YOUR concept of human and 
>animal rights.  If you were to say you feel dogs should have the right
>to vote and I disagreed, I guess you would say I have no respect for
>animals rights.  This is only your perspective.

	Russ and I tangled on this when the group was first formed, and
I cannot remember if we ever resolved it.  Russ, do you remember how
we cleared this up?

>>rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
>>rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
>>rl> his command?  Or, would you disobey?

	Religous zealots have used this excuse before.  Strangely
enough, they don't recognize the courts as having the authority to
judge them.  The tale of Soddom and Ghomorra should be an exercise
in how little power a law exerts over those who do not recognize the
authority of the lawmakers.  I don't suppose the Angel of Death that
passed over Egypt cared if the Pharoah was a god too -- his son was
killed just like the rest of them.

>Let me ask you a question.  If God manifested himself out of thin air in
>front of you, performed a few other miracles, would you doubt him when he
>said he was God and commanded you to do something you would otherwise view
>as unethical?  Would you seek the help of a shrink?  Or would you finally
>believe?

	I suggest the real question is, if this happened to Russ and he
told you about it, would you believe him?  There was once a man by the
name of Joseph Smith, who lived in Nauvoo, Illinois.  He was killed for
precisely this same reason, as the story goes.  You know his movement
as the Mormons.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >