From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:31:06 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul22.211859.27171@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>> = (James Purdon) writes:
>>>> = (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>>>>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.
>
>>>We do not, generally, consider those who are afraid to walk under
>>>ladders or break mirrors or cross the paths of black cats, on a path
>>>to wisdom.  Why should we consider those who are afraid of imaginary
>>>beings any differently?  
>
>>You are quite correct with respect to ladders, mirrors and so forth.
>>However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 
>>recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
>>conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?
>
>Why would a set of outdated writings, full of mistakes, translated into
>pablum, written *2000 years* ago, and filled with unlikely fairy tales
>be given credence by an avowed atheist?  (Or even anyone else?)  The bible
>contains some nice philosophical points and moral guidelines, but that god
>depicted in the Old Testament seems like one twisted cookie to me.

Why?  Because it is true.  Much less, even for the sake of the argument,
people believe it is true and thus it has impact on our lives today, else
you Mr. Novak would not rant so much when people cite it as an authority.

Do you so believe in your understanding of the lack of merit of the Bible
that you don't have to respond to its use or do you by your response
acknowledge it has merit?  How comfortable are you in you believe that
the Bible is so full of mistakes that it is not note worthy?

Yes, it does have some nice philosophical points and moral guidelines,
as many other books do, but you don't rant about the other books that
are labeled fictional, do you?  However, the main point of the book is
that Jesus (God in human flesh, the express image of God, the fullness
of God in bodily form, Jesus of Nazerath), who walked this earth, came
from God to perform a great work for mankind and this Jesus was witnessed 
to have ascended back into the heavens and is now at the right hand of God.

Oh, by the way, I was directing my questions at James and not the general
public, which always has the right to jump in - thanks for your response.

>>definition: (from The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary)
>>fear n 1. emotion characterized by dread or expectation of harm, 2. REVERENCE
>>     FOR A SUPREME POWER, ...
>>
>>This is the only dictionary I have handy.  If you have one, you may want to
>>check the definition yourself.
>
>Um...who cares?  What does this have to do with James' point that your god
>is as much an unprovable superstition as fear of the number 13, or
>astrology?  Don't go into a Fundie Fog on us now.

See above and my response to James - God is not imaginary.

>> Do not be deceived.  God is not mocked.
>
>"God is a putz."  Apparently, you're wrong. 

Oh, you might be interested - the complete quote is "God is not mocked.
Whatever a man sows that shall he reap."  So again I ask, do you think
you really get to mock God?

>>>Once I was single.  Now I am married.
>
>>How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?
>>do your wife agree?
>
>(What does THIS have to do with the discussion?)

The point being that religion is a part of most people's lives - do
you agree with this?  

In fact, the last poll I heard (about a week ago) said that only
four percent (4%) of Americans do not have any religious leanings
or something like that - so that leaves about 94% that do.  I'm
not saying those 94% are devout to their religion, but that they
have not thrown it away completely.  You might be interested to
know the the same poll said that forty percent (40%) of top show-biz
(Hollywood) types had no religious affiliations.

Religion usually is more evident in weddings than many other areas
of peoples lives.  (Women often make up a high percentage of 
church goers - depends on the church.)  That was the point of the
question.  By the way, I'm not trying to be sexist by using women, 
hopefully, all understand my point.

>I don't know about Jim; my wife and I are both atheists, and know we are
>together because we want to be, and via a civil ceremony.  Heck, we hit it
>off so well we didn't even bother getting married our first 5 years (15
>total, now).  

That's your choice and is supported by the legal system.

A question.  The Constitution (or Bill of Rights) states the right
of freedom to express one's religion, doesn't it?  Is the right
also there to express and practice one's lack of religion?  How
do you understand or interpret this?

>We're an amazingly close couple, and a hell of a lot happier than many 
>couples stuck lovelessly together, for instance, because they're Catholics,
>or stuck in a marriage without love because of the kids they had together.

I have no qualm with there are in existence a lot of unhappy marriages
because of some need or religious requirement.  However, this need not be.  
If one truly followed the intent of Christianity, things would be a lot
better.  No where in Christianity are you commanded to get a divorce,
but rather you are challenged to forgive.  Much less, when a couple can
share the deep religious convictions and love for God, mankind and each
other, they have a whole lot more than a godless couple has.

>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com

Yes, there is something that can be done.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion