From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Off Topic Topic
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:33:06 GMT

In article <n0d99t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>DR> I do not consider Christians my enemy. I do, though,
>DR> consider Christianity my enemy. A greater evil one
>DR> would be hard pressed to find.
> 
>JA-FSO> "What about Christianity makes you see it as
>JA-FSO> your enemy?"
> 
>I feel that the ideology that humans are "born in sin" morally
>repugnant. More so when "sin" is so innoculously defind that it
>is mutable, and may represent ANYTHING that happens to be
>politically unpopular, and thus becomes expediant to label "sin."
>This "sin" is often even classified to skin color (!). Look at why
>the Southern Baptists church was formed (to fight abolition).

Of course, because people can twist the definition of sin to suit
their purposes does not make it an invalid concept.

> 
>Christianity is very much like an abusive "control freak" in
>a co-dependant relationship---- all Christianity has to do
>to pull your strings, get you to toe the line, get you to
>fill their coffers with gold, is to take some innate part of
>human nature, and turn it into guilt, which only the Church
>can ease. This easement is only temporary, of course, because
>when one represses, suppresses, or sublimates NATURAL human
>behavior, neurotic behavior results. That neurotic behavior
>is then called by Christianity "sin" even though the Church
>is often directly responsible for it. (This is classic sadistic
>co-dependancy behavior, which is just one reason why "control
>freaks" have such a need to control others.)

Do you really believe what you are saying?  I may have a natural
instinct to take an axe and kill my foolish neighbor for some
disagreement that we have.  Christianity aside, do you feel that
it is unwise for someone to control their natural impulses?  Or
are you advocating that everyone do whatever comes natural to
them.  Society has laws that were made for the common good and
most of us try to keep those laws even if our natural impulses are
different.  We all repress and sublimate natural human behavior
whether or not we are Christian.

> 
>This is why Christianity so loves perverting sexuality, and
>making it something dirty and evil: they say that sex outside
>of marriage is "a sin," yet what if someone doesn't want to
>be married? Or is already married elsewhere? This guilt results
>in repression, which can cause a great deal of harm by being
>expressed in negative forms---- forms which in turn the individual
>is made to feel guilty about!

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

Now Christianity sees human sexuality as a gift from God with the
purposes of procreation and the expression of love between a man
and woman.  It also includes a set of guidelines.  I suggest that
one shouldn't look at the guidelines as inhibiting natural or
creative behaviour, but as instructions for making the full use of
this precious gift of God.  Taken in that light, it does not seem
as threatening or unnatural.

> 
>There is another major reason why I consider Christianity to
>be the enemy of humankind in general, and myself in particular.
>It places humans outside of nature, "created" as a special
>event instead of being a PART OF THE WHOLE that we are. The
>ideology that Earth was made for humans to "have dominion"
>over is ABOMINAL. This idea alone is greatly responsible for
>us crapping in our food and pissing in out water (that and
>greed).

I disagree with you.  It is true that Genesis states that God made
man the ruler over the earth and its inhabitants but this in no
way justifies us ruining our environment.  For which ruler would
be considered good if he slaughtered his subjects and made their
country uninhabitable.  No, any ruler has the obligation to rule
in the best interest of their subjects. If they don't, they
quickly gain a bad reputation.  In the same way, we all have a
responsibility to the stewardship that was given to us.  Taken in
that light, one cannot use Christianity as a scapegoat for
environmental problems.  I believe that you fingered it correctly
when you mentioned greed.  That people justify their greed by
(mis)quoting Scripture is surely not the fault of the religion. 

> 
>I can continue to rant on and on for several hours, so I'll
>end my tantrum here (it isn't a sci.skeptic topic, after all).
>However, I cannot think of a more evil, morally repugnant, vile
>idology that Christianity. Nationalism, patriotism, and fascism
>all take second place next to Christianity, because while the
>formers teach one to hate ones' neighbor, the latter teaches
>one to not only hate ones' neighbor AND THEN =CALL= THAT HATE
>"LOVE," it also teaches one to hate oneself.

Well, you anwered my question, to which I am greatful.  However, I
must say that I cannot agree with your conclusions at all.
Because while there might have been abuses by Christans that
twisted the meaning of love and hate it does not mean that
Christianity as a religion espoused those twisted beliefs at all. 

>--- 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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic