RELIGION: Revisited (Long)

[Meredith L. Giberson]

Kestrel takes a moment to breathe deeply and slowly, doing her best to yank
her mind out of the first justifiable flame-fest she's ever seen or heard
of. Time to move on, time to talk about something new.

"I've read each response to my original 'Conversion' post, in email and
here in the group, very carefully. And if I haven't responded to you,
please bear with me...I've been fighting off the flu very unsuccessfully
for the past three weeks, and my replies to -everyone- have become erratic
at best.

"What I want to talk about is, once again, religion. Actually, religion is
probably the wrong word. Maybe I should use the word "hope". Because
deciding to believe something isn't the same thing as having faith; it's
more like deciding on what it is that you -hope- is true. I want to talk
about it for several reasons: Because everyone took such time and care in
answering my first Religion post, because I learned a great deal about
everyone who answered and I want to return that favor, because I feel good
about it. But most of all, I want to talk about it because there's no one
in my life right now who can really understand my feelings in this. I have
a wonderful husband I love dearly, and to whom I can talk about
anything...but he doesn't need to believe in anything beyond what he sees.
He's tried very hard to understand, but he doesn't feel what I feel about
it. When I talk to him about this, he's supportive and sweet...but
somehow, I end up feeling like I'm explaining to him why I want to believe
Tinkerbell really exists. That's my fault, not his--I'm pretty insecure
about this part of my life right now.

"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
experience things. Just...nothing.

"So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.
The typical Christian dogma was out--I'd been trying to believe it since
birth, and failing more miserably every year. The closest I could come was
admitting that most of the Ten Commandments were pretty decent rules, in
most circumstances. Not exactly the unshakeable foundation of faith
demanded by the Church.

"Having read all the responses, I've come to several conclusions--things
that I can believe in, or at least try very hard to believe in, that will
make me happy.

"First, my conception of divinity. I choose to believe in causality; by
that I mean that things happen for a reason. This implies motive, and
motive implies intelligence; therefore, I believe there is an Intellect
higher than the one I experience as my own, which does not control me, but
which has placed me here for a reason currently outside of my
comprehension. I say that it does not control me; by that I mean that it
does not consciously move me to make certain decisions or choices. Rather,
I don't believe that there is an external force controlling my destiny.
Whatever it is, I'm a part of it--an extension of its awareness, operating
on a different plane of existence. Therefore, that which controls me -is-
me, on a level of which I am not conscious.

"Further, I believe that every living person is a part of a separate
Intellect. You could probably substitute the word "soul" for Intellect,
but the connotations are such that I don't want to use it. These
Intellects are our greater selves, the part of us which holds the knowledge
of what is beyond death and before birth. They are eternally young because
they are eternally learning. They are immortal. They delight in
experience. In my mind, I see them as young gods at play, dousing their
knowledge to take up residence in a human shell and live with risk and
challenge, rejoicing to share what they've learned when it is over.
Remembering all of the life that has passed as well as all that they left
behind to live it. Experiencing the emotions more widely and fully than
they could while earthbound. Our Immortal Selves.

"I also believe that there's a single creative force in the Universe, and
that it, too, is intelligent. I don't believe that it would matter one way
or the other to this force how we chose to view it--I see it as a
care-taker, nurturing, commanding not worship but respect. I'm inclined to
view it as feminine, but I don't think it matters how you view it. Seeing
it as a woman makes it feel more accessible to me, so that's how I'll see
it; my views will change it not one whit from what it actually is, and I
believe that it will be far removed from our concepts of gender in any
case.

"One of the problems I had at first was pain. It took me a while to find a
way to explain it to myself, and this is what I've come up with. It
involves a deeper understanding of the true meaning of Immortality as I see
it.

"When residence is taken in a human body, all knowledge and selfness is
left behind. Only the ability to experience and learn is retained. They
risk pain to learn about the joy that comes from overcoming adversity.
Only when the stakes are high are our emotions strong and pure.

"And pain teaches us. There's always something to learn from it. The
greater the pain, the greater the potential for growth of understanding.
If we fail--if we experience a great pain, and cannot get through it to the
learning--that's the risk we take. Our Intellects submerge themselves in
the human experience, risking pain in hope of gaining knowledge and
experience. They don't control us--they ARE us. We are those young gods
at play, in the game of our own choosing, taking the risks we decided on
before we undertook the journey, dealing with the aftermath when this life
is done before undertaking the -next- journey.

"All of which fits in nicely with something I've -always- believed: That
when we wallow in our own pain and self-pity rather than trying to examine
the events that caused the pain and trying to extract some learning, we
thwart our own purposes. It's not just painful to be bitter; it's also
self-defeating.

"As for worship, ritual, ceremony--I believe that they exist to provide
solace. When we clear our minds and hearts of the trappings of Earth, and
listen to the silences, we come closer to our own souls. Pain hurts; when
we come closest to our higher selves, we realize that pain is ephemeral and
we are eternal. In the long run, pain is irrelevant. Through ritual, we
can move our minds to a place where the learning is easier, the pain not so
sharp.

"So, where'd I get all this? Most of it came from me, though "me" is
fairly well-read and has borrowed snips and snatches. A lot of it came
from my own feelings and hopes about the way the Universe works, and the
rest...well, what was good I kept, what I didn't like I threw back, a
little chewing gum and some duct tape...=)

"Thanks for listening to this ramble. It helped me clarify I few things
for myself."

--Kestrel

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----+
"We are not Human beings having Spiritual experiences; we are Spiritual
beings having Human experiences!" --Anon.

[Craig Helfgott]

Hi, I just wanted to say that I agree with almost all of your sentiments.
I have had (am having?) a similar crisis of fatih for the same reason
(except that I was raised Jewish), and I reached mostly the same
conclusions. But... what you wrote is what I *want* to believe, and what
I would like to be true. Unfortunately, I have no proof, and it is very
difficult to convince myself to believe it. I'm a physics major, and as
such, I particularly like the "argument by design", i.e. that the
Universe is too wonderful and complicated _not_ to have been created by
someOne higher than ourselves. I still wish I had stronger proof. I want
to believe this, because if death is final, and our understanding of the
Universe is true (entropy, etc.), then existence seems to me to be
futile.

I've searched for proof, in philosophy, in physics, I've even posted to
alt.magick looking for something outside of what is normally believed. I
don't like living with doubt, but I can't do anything else.

Craig Helfgott

[Unbeliever]

In article <mgiberson-ya023180...@news.genmagic.com>,

Meredith L. Giberson <mgib...@genmagic.com> wrote:

>But most of all, I want to talk about it because there's no one
>in my life right now who can really understand my feelings in this. I have
>a wonderful husband I love dearly, and to whom I can talk about
>anything...but he doesn't need to believe in anything beyond what he sees.
>He's tried very hard to understand, but he doesn't feel what I feel about
>it. When I talk to him about this, he's supportive and sweet...but
>somehow, I end up feeling like I'm explaining to him why I want to believe
>Tinkerbell really exists. That's my fault, not his--I'm pretty insecure
>about this part of my life right now.
>
>"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
>physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
>be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
>experience things. Just...nothing.
>
>"So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.

The Unbeliever looks very uneasy, but tries to forge ahead anyway.

"I want you to believe that I know *EXACTLY* what you're talking about.
I have the same... condition. Phobia. Fear. Call it what you will.
It's not the ordinary ``afraid of death'' thing that most folks have.
It's a hyper-extended version of that. The finality. The end of
consciousness. The end of the universe, as far as *I* am concerned. The
universe moving on without me. The realization that time was going on a
long time before I showed up, and I WASN'T THERE TO NOTICE IT, and that
that's how it's going to be again someday."

Unbe shudders, closes his eyes, and breathes deeply for a few minutes
before continuing.

"This has been a curse of mine for a very long time; it probably started
when I was 12 or so. I can't think about that subject for very long,
before I have what can only be described as a panic attack. I freak, get
very cold, crumble in on myself. The *ONLY* way I can cope, to this day,
is to catch myself as I start the downward spiral and FORCE myself to
think about something else. Usually, I concentrate on the disgust I feel
for reacting so desperately to something that is totally out of my
control. (I've had to do this a couple of times just while responding to
your post). I can't change the fact that humans die. I can't change
whatever DOES happen when you die. However it works, it works, and it
doesn't need my permission. So I force myself not to think about it.
Death will happen when it happens, and why make LIFE miserable worrying
about the inevitable?"

"No version of an afterlife story gives me any comfort, mostly because
there's NO WAY TO KNOW for certain. I am a rationalist, a scientist (at
heart), and a secular humanist. I cannot accept the ``God hypothesis''
without proof, and none has ever been forthcoming. Isaac Asimov once
wrote something to the effect of, ``To surrender to ignorance and call it
God has always been premature, and it remains so to this day.'' This I
firmly believe. This does not mean that God does *NOT* exist; it just
means that the PROOF isn't there. That nothing has ever happened in the
documented history of Man that REQUIRES a God to be explained."

"So... the advice I offer is, don't kill off your rational side just
because your irrational side has a phobia. Believe in what you know to
be TRUTH, and don't let yourself think about what happens ``after''. For
all their big talk, NO religious person has any more HARD EVIDENCE than
you have for God, or life after death. The actual PROOF simply isn't
there. People can act very sure of themselves and their religions...
but there's ALWAYS someone else who's EQUALLY ``sure'' that HIS religion
is right, and it will contradict the first person's religion in every
way. They can't ALL be right, and without scientific backing to their
claims, I simply cannot choose one of them and ``hope''. That way lies
madness."

>"So, where'd I get all this? Most of it came from me, though "me" is
>fairly well-read and has borrowed snips and snatches. A lot of it came
>from my own feelings and hopes about the way the Universe works, and the
>rest...well, what was good I kept, what I didn't like I threw back, a
>little chewing gum and some duct tape...=)

"This is what I've come up with over the years, using the same technique
you describe:"

1) Either God exists, or he doesn't.
2) If God doesn't exist, none of this matters, and the best answer to
life is "do the best you can to make the world a better place
for the next guy".
3) If God exists, he's either a God I would approve of, or he's not (the
Fundamentalist Christian idea of God is definitely one I would *NOT*
approve of).
4) If he's a God I don't approve of, then fuck him and the horse he rode
in on. Existance sucks, and I want off this ride.
5) If he's a God I do approve of, he'll understand and approve of my rational
approach to life. He won't take offense at my intellectual difficulty
in believing in him without proof. He won't take offense at my
utter disgust of Fundamentalist Christians and their dogma; in fact,
he'll support it. And what does this God say about the best answer to
life? "Do the best you can to make the world a better place for the
next guy."

>"Thanks for listening to this ramble. It helped me clarify I few things
>for myself."

"Feel free to Email me if you'd like someone to discuss this with,
one-on-one. I'll even give you my phone number if you like. Believe me
that I *KNOW* where you're coming from... You're not alone..."

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-
(Reed Byers)

EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

Meredith L. Giberson wrote:

8<mass snippage to summarize>8

> "Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
> physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
> be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
> experience things. Just...nothing.
>
> "So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.
> The typical Christian dogma was out--I'd been trying to believe it since
> birth, and failing more miserably every year.

> "First, my conception of divinity. I choose to believe in causality; by

> that I mean that things happen for a reason. This implies motive, and
> motive implies intelligence; therefore, I believe there is an Intellect
> higher than the one I experience as my own, which does not control me, but
> which has placed me here for a reason currently outside of my
> comprehension.

> "Further, I believe that every living person is a part of a separate

> Intellect. You could probably substitute the word "soul" for Intellect,
> but the connotations are such that I don't want to use it.

> "I also believe that there's a single creative force in the Universe, and

> that it, too, is intelligent.

> "When residence is taken in a human body, all knowledge and selfness is

> left behind. Only the ability to experience and learn is retained. They
> risk pain to learn about the joy that comes from overcoming adversity.
> Only when the stakes are high are our emotions strong and pure.

> "All of which fits in nicely with something I've -always- believed: That

> when we wallow in our own pain and self-pity rather than trying to examine
> the events that caused the pain and trying to extract some learning, we
> thwart our own purposes. It's not just painful to be bitter; it's also
> self-defeating.
>
> "As for worship, ritual, ceremony--I believe that they exist to provide
> solace. When we clear our minds and hearts of the trappings of Earth, and
> listen to the silences, we come closer to our own souls.

> "We are not Human beings having Spiritual experiences; we are Spiritual

> beings having Human experiences!" --Anon.

Based on what you've said above, I think you've gone the route of
Platonism or Neo-Platonism. Not that I'm trying to pin a label on you
in order to back you into a corner, but to provide you with a starting
point for further exploration.

You've basically stated that we are immortal selves who sacrifice a
major part of our essence in order to become human and learn through
human experience. Furthermoer, you've alluded to a belief that this
reality is "less real" than the reality where our immortal selves
dwell. Certainly sounds like Plato to me. You might want to read the
dialogues again. (My copy is in the office right now, but if you like I
can point you to a couple that pertain immediately if you're not
familiar with them.)

Just a resident theologian trying to be of assistance.

Barthel

P.S. Would it surprise you to discover that beginning with the imperial
era of the church (313 A.D.) all the way up to Aquinas, that
Christianity and Neo-Platonism were considered to be synonymous?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just think about it: Windows 95 is Commodore Amiga '84--almost, but not
quite.
"Friends don't let friends do Windows. Be a designated Amigan."
A public service message from Ld. Barthel.
kkne...@ptdprolog.net
http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr
Ld.Ba...@juno.com

[Meredith L. Giberson]

In article <56g6kt$k...@news.orst.edu>, bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) wrote:

(Kestrel)
~*>"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
~*>physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
~*>be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
~*>experience things. Just...nothing.
~*>
~*>"So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.

(The Unbeliever)
~*The Unbeliever looks very uneasy, but tries to forge ahead anyway.
~*
~*"I want you to believe that I know *EXACTLY* what you're talking about.
~*I have the same... condition. Phobia. Fear. Call it what you will.
~*It's not the ordinary ``afraid of death'' thing that most folks have.
~*It's a hyper-extended version of that. The finality. The end of
~*consciousness. The end of the universe, as far as *I* am concerned. The
~*universe moving on without me. The realization that time was going on a
~*long time before I showed up, and I WASN'T THERE TO NOTICE IT, and that
~*that's how it's going to be again someday."
~*
~*Unbe shudders, closes his eyes, and breathes deeply for a few minutes
~*before continuing.
~*
~*"This has been a curse of mine for a very long time; it probably started
~*when I was 12 or so. I can't think about that subject for very long,
~*before I have what can only be described as a panic attack. I freak, get
~*very cold, crumble in on myself. The *ONLY* way I can cope, to this day,
~*is to catch myself as I start the downward spiral and FORCE myself to
~*think about something else. Usually, I concentrate on the disgust I feel
~*for reacting so desperately to something that is totally out of my
~*control. (I've had to do this a couple of times just while responding to
~*your post).

Kestrel blinks several times, rapidly, and suppresses a shudder. "You DO
know what I'm feeling," she says wonderingly. "I thought I was the only
one.

"My mind brushes past thinking of it several times a day, and I do what you
do; I give myself a mental smack and turn my thoughts to something else
immediately. I actually think this is why I watch so much TV--it lets me
turn my mind *OFF* for a while. Long enough to get out from under it.

"If I let myself think about it...I can't even describe the way I feel, but
from what you've said, I don't think I have to. I spiral into a depression
that can last for days, during which any moment not solely devoted to
survival is spent in a state of...I don't know, self-mourning? Rabid
atheism? A state in which I'm certain of the utter insignicance of life in
general and my own life in particular. In my mind's eye I see my life as a
moment, a second of color, in a vast darkness. 'All sound and fury,
signifying nothing...'"

Kestrel breaks off, struggling to get a grip on herself.

"I'm...morbidly obsessed with this. I came up with some things to fight it
with, because frankly, I scare myself sometimes. I'm not the suicidal
type, but there are times when anyone looking into my thoughts would find
that hard to believe."

~* I can't change the fact that humans die. I can't change
~*whatever DOES happen when you die. However it works, it works, and it
~*doesn't need my permission. So I force myself not to think about it.
~*Death will happen when it happens, and why make LIFE miserable worrying
~*about the inevitable?"

"Precisely. That line of thought even works some of the time." Kestrel
smiles wearily. "When it fails though...it fails big. And I end up hating
myself for thinking about it, for spending my time on it, because there's
absolutely nothing I can do about it. No matter how much I hate it, it's
going to happen to me, and whatever happens after is out of my hands. My
parents wanted me to be a Christian, but they didn't work hard enough at
it. I was born a Baptist but raised a Scientist. Sometimes I actually
resent them for that, you know? Because it would be so comforting to be
one of those people who just believe. Is it possible to be
well-indoctrinated -and- intelligent? I don't know, but I'd love to try.
Maybe Laura the Minister is the one I should be talking to; she seems to
have both!

"When I feel good, I feel certain that having faith in something you can't
see means you've shut down a part of your brain. When I go into that
"downward spiral"...I wonder if -lacking- faith means you've shut down a
part of your heart. I feel that there's something wrong with me, something
missing..." Kestrel sighs.

~*"No version of an afterlife story gives me any comfort, mostly because
~*there's NO WAY TO KNOW for certain. I am a rationalist, a scientist (at
~*heart), and a secular humanist.

"Me, too. But it doesn't make me feel any better in those moments between
turning out the light and falling asleep. Most people use those moments to
pray; I use them to mourn.

"I know what you mean; I haven't found any version that makes a whit of
difference, either. I'm hoping, though, that by making up my own, I can
convince myself. As a writer, I've become very familiar with the concept
of a willing suspension of disbelief. If I can do it for an hour or two, I
can do it for longer, right?" A wry smile touches her lips. "Maybe not.
But it's worth a try."

~*I cannot accept the ``God hypothesis''
~*without proof, and none has ever been forthcoming. Isaac Asimov once
~*wrote something to the effect of, ``To surrender to ignorance and call it
~*God has always been premature, and it remains so to this day.'' This I
~*firmly believe. This does not mean that God does *NOT* exist; it just
~*means that the PROOF isn't there. That nothing has ever happened in the
~*documented history of Man that REQUIRES a God to be explained."

"I don't know that I need to actually -believe-. I just want to find some
way to have -hope-. I want to crawl back from the brink of despairing,
total atheism. I don't want to stare bare-faced into that darkness
anymore, looking at my life from a distance as a doomed spark of sound and
color with no future and no past. I built that story the way a weary
pessimist might lovingly craft a pair of rose-colored glasses. Might not
help, but can't hurt, and I'm as tired as I can be of living in fear.

~*"So... the advice I offer is, don't kill off your rational side just
~*because your irrational side has a phobia. Believe in what you know to
~*be TRUTH, and don't let yourself think about what happens ``after''. For
~*all their big talk, NO religious person has any more HARD EVIDENCE than
~*you have for God, or life after death. The actual PROOF simply isn't
~*there. People can act very sure of themselves and their religions...
~*but there's ALWAYS someone else who's EQUALLY ``sure'' that HIS religion
~*is right, and it will contradict the first person's religion in every
~*way. They can't ALL be right, and without scientific backing to their
~*claims, I simply cannot choose one of them and ``hope''. That way lies
~*madness."

Kestrel grins. "Then I'm in real trouble. Because madness also lies
*THIS* way.

"I understand what you're saying, Unbeliever...I say it to myself several
times a day. Live now, don't worry about what might happen after. If
you're lucky, you'll die in a car crash or by a bullet to the head,
something you won't see coming. Rationally, I know that ceasing to exist
is nothing to worry about. I mean, it's not like I'll be there to have it
bother me, right? What scares me the most is illness. I'm sure, from what
you've written, that you share the same fear. Cancer. AIDS. Something
terminal, but slow. Something that will give you a good, long look at the
end. Old age. There's a good one. Books and television are teaming with
old people who talk about having lived a full life and therefore not
fearing death. BULL. I don't buy it. Not for myself, anyway. I don't
believe there's any pleasant deathbed scene waiting for me. No plans to
"Go gently into that good night". If whatever kills me takes its time,
I'll go out a drooling, gibbering madwoman, no doubt.

"I won't kill off my rational side. I -can't-. I do my best to live in
the moment, and slam the door on despair whenever I feel myself giving in
to it...but the fear is there. It won't go away. And maybe I've become a
bit desperate. I don't want to delude myself or be deluded. I just want
something that will give me some hope that I may be wrong. So far, nothing
in my life has done that. Nothing has shaken my "faith" that death is
final, oblivion.

(Kestrel again)
~*>"So, where'd I get all this? Most of it came from me, though "me" is
~*>fairly well-read and has borrowed snips and snatches. A lot of it came
~*>from my own feelings and hopes about the way the Universe works, and the
~*>rest...well, what was good I kept, what I didn't like I threw back, a
~*>little chewing gum and some duct tape...=)
~*
~*"This is what I've come up with over the years, using the same technique
~*you describe:"
~*
~*1) Either God exists, or he doesn't.
~*2) If God doesn't exist, none of this matters, and the best answer to
~* life is "do the best you can to make the world a better place
~* for the next guy".
~*3) If God exists, he's either a God I would approve of, or he's not (the
~* Fundamentalist Christian idea of God is definitely one I would *NOT*
~* approve of).
~*4) If he's a God I don't approve of, then fuck him and the horse he rode
~* in on. Existance sucks, and I want off this ride.

"I was with you up to here. Existence CAN suck, but it's better than
nothing (IMO). Immortality would not be a bad deal."

~*5) If he's a God I do approve of, he'll understand and approve of my rational
~* approach to life. He won't take offense at my intellectual difficulty
~* in believing in him without proof. He won't take offense at my
~* utter disgust of Fundamentalist Christians and their dogma; in fact,
~* he'll support it. And what does this God say about the best answer to
~* life? "Do the best you can to make the world a better place for the
~* next guy."

"This is it. This is where I am. IF there is a God. IF God is a God I
can approve of. What do I want God to be? This is what I was doing in my
original post. I just skipped 1-4. I have no proof that there is a God,
and so I can't really, deeply believe. *Wanting* to believe is as close as
I come. I just want to keep reminding myself that I also have no proof
that there ISN'T a God. That's what that post was all about. I DON'T
KNOW. Emphasis for my own benefit, because I'm skating a little too close
to the edge right now. It bothers me...it OFFENDS me...that I can't be an
agnostic at the very least. It's just as ridiculous to be certain of
oblivion as it is to be certain of God, because WE DON'T KNOW. I get so
caught up in wondering why there's pain and suffering in the world if
there's a God that I don't get to the other side...why is there happiness
and joy if there isn't one? (I'm the only person I know who can preach to
herself; my mind is like duct tape...there's a light side and a dark side
and...)

"I made up things I want to be true because it's better to have a place to
start than to just flounder. I want to be converted from the religion that
chose me: Atheism. I don't want to be a Christian, but I want to know,
not just in my head but in my HEART--that I really have no clue what's
going to happen. I can't just assume the worst and still live a life worth
living. The most intelligent thing I think a person can be with regard to
religion is an agnostic. I want to get back into that category.

~*>"Thanks for listening to this ramble. It helped me clarify I few things
~*>for myself."
~*
~*"Feel free to Email me if you'd like someone to discuss this with,
~*one-on-one. I'll even give you my phone number if you like. Believe me
~*that I *KNOW* where you're coming from... You're not alone..."

Kestrel smiles. "I'd dearly love someone to discuss this with. I thought
I was the only one dealing with this phobia. I'm...slightly unsettled...to
find out that I'm not. I'd kind of hoped I was an aberration. There's
never before been anyone who could even -remotely- comprehend the cold, icy
fear that comes over me when I'm not careful. I think...I think it's a
good thing not to be alone in this.

"...and I've aliased your email address. In a way, we seem to understand
one another almost -too- well. I'm half afraid that if we talk, we might
end up swearing a suicide pact." Kestrel smiles, but it's clear that
she's only halfway joking.

"Thank you for this, Unbeliever..."

[Zaphkiel]

In article <56jgaq$o...@herald.concentric.net>, Ars...@cris.com says...

>Kestrel Writes:
>>"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
>>physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
>>be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
>>experience things. Just...nothing.
>

>"Yeah." Al says. "I hate thinking about this too. I get the feeling this
>is the part of death EVERYONE is afraid of."

Supply and demand. The demand for fear-easing fictions regarding
the afterlife has ensured the never ending supply.
Be a smart metaphysical consumer. Pick one that eases your fear
*effectively*, gives you peace of mind, and then do yourself a favor
and don't question it.
Personally, the idea of nothingness doesn't worry me that much. I can
think of much worse things. Spending eternity with a host of incredibly
smug, gloating Jehovah's Witnesses, for example.

--Zaphkiel

[him.]

In article <56g4d2$o...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,

Craig Helfgott <helf...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>difficult to convince myself to believe it. I'm a physics major, and as
>such, I particularly like the "argument by design", i.e. that the
>Universe is too wonderful and complicated _not_ to have been created by
>someOne higher than ourselves. I still wish I had stronger proof. I want

"Huh." Al says. "This must be one of the differences between phycists and
biologists. Biologists live in a world where Complex and Wonderful Things
happen All By Themselves. Maybe Phycisists don't."

Big Al. Wierd what you come across.

[him.]

Barthel: Yeah, it does look like Platonism, thanks for spotting that
for me.

Unbeliever: Believe it or not, (<grin>) you just took the roundabout
way towards Pascal's Wager with your 1-5 propositions. Wierd, huh?

Kestrel Writes:
>"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
>physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
>be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
>experience things. Just...nothing.

"Yeah." Al says. "I hate thinking about this too. I get the feeling this

is the part of death EVERYONE is afraid of."

>"So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.

>The typical Christian dogma was out--I'd been trying to believe it since
>birth, and failing more miserably every year. The closest I could come was
>admitting that most of the Ten Commandments were pretty decent rules, in
>most circumstances. Not exactly the unshakeable foundation of faith
>demanded by the Church.

"'Demanded', IME, is the wrong word. It helps, especially if you intend
to be Pope or something, but it ain't required."

>"Having read all the responses, I've come to several conclusions--things
>that I can believe in, or at least try very hard to believe in, that will
>make me happy.
>
>"First, my conception of divinity. I choose to believe in causality; by
>that I mean that things happen for a reason. This implies motive, and

"Ummm." Al says, "No, actually, it doesn't. Well, I mean, it implies
motive in the same sense that I implied I was part of the Church in my
statement above. (I'm not, actually) But it doesn't imply in the sense
one uses when chasing down logic. Not to be a downer, but I sorta
owed it to Speaker."

>I don't believe that there is an external force controlling my destiny.
>Whatever it is, I'm a part of it--an extension of its awareness, operating
>on a different plane of existence. Therefore, that which controls me -is-
>me, on a level of which I am not conscious.

"This is what Admiral Bob was driving at when he said 'Thou Art God'.
It's similar to certain Zen and Taoist ideas, but they don't require an
intelligence. Come to think of it, I don't think Heinlein did either."

>"Further, I believe that every living person is a part of a separate
>Intellect. You could probably substitute the word "soul" for Intellect,

"I'm not sure I want to use Intellect. How 'bout 'Watham'? I cribbed it
from Phillip Jose Farmer's riverworld stuff."

>"I also believe that there's a single creative force in the Universe, and
>that it, too, is intelligent. I don't believe that it would matter one way
>or the other to this force how we chose to view it--I see it as a
>care-taker, nurturing, commanding not worship but respect. I'm inclined to
>view it as feminine, but I don't think it matters how you view it. Seeing
>it as a woman makes it feel more accessible to me, so that's how I'll see
>it; my views will change it not one whit from what it actually is, and I
>believe that it will be far removed from our concepts of gender in any
>case.

"Are you familiar with the concept of 'broken' and 'unbroken' myths? You
have a broken myth there."

"I try desparately never to discuss my religious beliefs." Al says, "In
part because I remember what happened when someone would bring theirs up
in here when speaker was around. I also try to let others believe what
they will, but I don't mind throwing in the odd thought or two for good
measure. Hope that helped somewhat."

Big Al. WHy the hell am I trying to justify myself?

[him.]

In article <56jla4$1...@lex.zippo.com>, <Zaphkiel> wrote:
>In article <56jgaq$o...@herald.concentric.net>, Ars...@cris.com says...
>>Kestrel Writes:

>>>"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
>>>physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
>>>be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
>>>experience things. Just...nothing.

>>"Yeah." Al says. "I hate thinking about this too. I get the feeling this
>>is the part of death EVERYONE is afraid of."

> Personally, the idea of nothingness doesn't worry me that much. I can
>think of much worse things. Spending eternity with a host of incredibly
>smug, gloating Jehovah's Witnesses, for example.

Al giggles. "Periodically I have this image pop into my head:"

SCENE: The pearly gates. St. Peter is looking people up in their ledger
and sending them where they're supposed to go.

ALAN: Hi, I was supposed to come here?

PETE: Ah, yes. ID please? <looks over ledger>

ALAN: Say, you're St Peter, huh?

PETE: Yes, I am.

ALAN: So the christians were right?

PETE: Yes, they were.

ALAN: Rats.

PETE: Ah. There you are. Alan, I'm afraid you didn't embrace the true
faith, so you have to spend eternity in hell.

ALAN: That's fair.

Big Al. Hey, if I feed the others with my spoon, can I turn the place
into heaven?

[Unbeliever]

In article <mgiberson-ya023180...@news.genmagic.com>,
Meredith L. Giberson <mgib...@genmagic.com> wrote:

>~*Usually, I concentrate on the disgust I feel

>~*for reacting so desperately to something that is totally out of my
>~*control. (I've had to do this a couple of times just while responding to
>~*your post).
>
>Kestrel blinks several times, rapidly, and suppresses a shudder. "You DO
>know what I'm feeling," she says wonderingly. "I thought I was the only
>one.

The Unbeliever attempts a grin. "I *ALWAYS* feel like I'm the only one
(for MANY things), even when I've had my nose rubbed in the fact that I'm
not. So I HAD to respond when I slowly grokked that you were talking
about the same exact thing that I've suffered so long. I see it as a
consciousness level that others don't have; the only way I can explain
other people NOT having these attacks, is that they don't... FEEL it.
They know intellectually that death happens, but they seem to have an
autoimmune system that stops them from thinking too hard about it."

Unbe pauses. "That autoimmune system is what I wish I had. Not a break
in rationality, just a break in FEELING death so INTENSELY."

>"My mind brushes past thinking of it several times a day, and I do what you
>do; I give myself a mental smack and turn my thoughts to something else
>immediately. I actually think this is why I watch so much TV--it lets me
>turn my mind *OFF* for a while. Long enough to get out from under it.

Unbe shakes his head. "Boy, do I know that feeling."

"At my worst, I can get this bad (in terms of frequency). Usually, I only
get to that ``critical point'' thinking about it around once a month.
When this happens, if I'm REALLY successful in forcing my mind somewhere
else, it can go away fairly quickly. Depending on what brought it to
mind the FIRST time, though, I may not be as successful... and then the
cold spiral starts."

>"I'm...morbidly obsessed with this. I came up with some things to fight it
>with, because frankly, I scare myself sometimes. I'm not the suicidal
>type, but there are times when anyone looking into my thoughts would find
>that hard to believe."

Unbe half-smirks. "Join the club. I've often thought that I'd be a
classic suicidal type, if only I had the guts. I'm a COWARD, deep down,
and that keeps me alive. Plus, I'm intelligent enough to realize that
when I'm NOT in this downward spiral (which is the overwhelming majority
of the time), I actually do enjoy life quite a bit. So I wall off that
section of my brain that would screw up life for me, and get on with
day-to-day life as best I can."

>"Precisely. That line of thought even works some of the time." Kestrel
>smiles wearily. "When it fails though...it fails big. And I end up hating
>myself for thinking about it, for spending my time on it, because there's
>absolutely nothing I can do about it. No matter how much I hate it, it's
>going to happen to me, and whatever happens after is out of my hands. My
>parents wanted me to be a Christian, but they didn't work hard enough at
>it. I was born a Baptist but raised a Scientist.

Unbe actually laughs here. "My mother is Episcopalian, my dad is
Jewish. I was raised a religious mongrel, with a sampler-pack of both.
But mostly, as you said, they raised me a Scientist. Rationality first.
Unfortunately (in my mother's eyes), she accomplished THAT part so well
that it left no room for blind acceptance of religion, including hers."

>Sometimes I actually
>resent them for that, you know? Because it would be so comforting to be
>one of those people who just believe. Is it possible to be
>well-indoctrinated -and- intelligent? I don't know, but I'd love to try.

"That's a cliche. ``Ignorance is bliss.'' Of *COURSE* you'd be happier
if you were blindly convinced of religion. That's precisely why so many
people *ARE* religious! Religion provides comfort. It tells you not to
worry so much about rationality, and just to trust your warm-fuzzy
feelings (and your ever-so-slick-and-charismatic preacher), and not to worry
your pretty little head about minor things like facts, science, or reason.
There is a deep human need to feel like ``everything's OK'', and science
can't answer that need. Reality makes no guarantees. Religion, on the
other hand, does. No wonder it's so tempting! All you need do is close
your eyes..."

"For what it's worth though... I feel the same resent, at times."

>"When I feel good, I feel certain that having faith in something you can't
>see means you've shut down a part of your brain. When I go into that
>"downward spiral"...I wonder if -lacking- faith means you've shut down a
>part of your heart. I feel that there's something wrong with me, something
>missing..." Kestrel sighs.

"As I mentioned earlier, I generally see it as something OTHERS are
missing. And yes, I wish I could be equally ``comfortable''.
But I don't want it enough to sacrifice WHO I AM to get it."

>"Me, too. But it doesn't make me feel any better in those moments between
>turning out the light and falling asleep. Most people use those moments to
>pray; I use them to mourn.

"I use them to read, because if I DIDN'T, I'd be doing as you do. Of
course, sometimes the book I'm reading will hit me between the eyes with
the whole death thing... That's when it gets REALLY bad, when I get
reminded, STRONGLY, while reading at bedtime. I've even had to call Jez
just to hear her voice, at whatever hour of night. Another human's voice
tends to break me out of it, make me too self-conscious to maintain the
spiral."

>I'm hoping, though, that by making up my own, I can
>convince myself. As a writer, I've become very familiar with the concept
>of a willing suspension of disbelief. If I can do it for an hour or two, I
>can do it for longer, right?" A wry smile touches her lips. "Maybe not.
>But it's worth a try."

"I've been there, trying to convince myself. Trying to find an answer
that feels MORE right, and yet provides more comfort than atheism. Alas,
the problem is: the more ``comfortable'' the belief system, the more
certain I am that it is WRONG."

"There's only two reasons to believe in something: 1) sufficient proof,
and 2) a desire to believe. When a belief system provides comfort, the
desire to believe becomes very strong -- and nothing masks the absence of
sufficient proof like the desire to believe something ANYWAY. So I
immediately become suspicious of the belief systems that sound too good
to be true. Like, say, Christianity."

>"I don't know that I need to actually -believe-. I just want to find some
>way to have -hope-.

The Unbeliever looks sympathetic. "I understand what you're saying, but
the best hope there is, is a simple shrug and an ``I don't know''.
NOBODY knows what's beyond death; we have no WAY to know. At least, no
way that a Scientist would accept. Some people take comfort in
spiritualists and Ouija boards. Others in religion. Science offers no
such luxury. All we've got is ``wait and see''. So that's what we have
to live with. Uncertainty."

>I want to crawl back from the brink of despairing,
>total atheism.

"Atheism need not be despair. It's hard for me, too. But I'm convinced
that a Godless universe is not a pointless one."

Unbe sighs.

"The rational part of me says, there is no God, death is death,
consciousness is a cruel trick of nature. Anyone who says different is
trying to sell something."

Unbe half-grins at his own movie quote.

"But WHETHER OR NOT that is true, is beside the point. What we *MUST*
concentrate on is the here and now. RIGHT NOW we exist. RIGHT NOW we
matter. The rest simply isn't important. Be *SURE* of that. You could
be absolutely sure of the worst... and still be wrong. So why live like
that?"

"This answer isn't as satisfying as the one you (and I as well) are
looking for. It doesn't give the same comfort as religion. But it gives
more comfort than dwelling on something we can't change."

"Another way to look at all this is, think of the phobia as a personal
curse. Could be worse. Could be AIDS. This thing IS BEATABLE,
psychologically. The trick is, learning to get there without
sacrificing the Rational part of us that makes us LIKE ourselves."

>I don't want to stare bare-faced into that darkness
>anymore, looking at my life from a distance as a doomed spark of sound and
>color with no future and no past.

Unbe sighs. "When I *LOOK* at it, that's what I see, too. So I don't
look. I'm pretty sure that NOT dwelling on it is healthier..."

>~*They can't ALL be right, and without scientific backing to their

>~*claims, I simply cannot choose one of them and ``hope''. That way lies
>~*madness."
>
>Kestrel grins. "Then I'm in real trouble. Because madness also lies
>*THIS* way.

The Unbeliever offers Kestrel a very special hug. "I know...", he
whispers. "I know..."

>"I understand what you're saying, Unbeliever...I say it to myself several
>times a day. Live now, don't worry about what might happen after. If
>you're lucky, you'll die in a car crash or by a bullet to the head,
>something you won't see coming. Rationally, I know that ceasing to exist
>is nothing to worry about. I mean, it's not like I'll be there to have it
>bother me, right? What scares me the most is illness. I'm sure, from what
>you've written, that you share the same fear. Cancer. AIDS. Something
>terminal, but slow. Something that will give you a good, long look at the
>end. Old age. There's a good one. Books and television are teaming with
>old people who talk about having lived a full life and therefore not
>fearing death. BULL. I don't buy it. Not for myself, anyway. I don't
>believe there's any pleasant deathbed scene waiting for me. No plans to
>"Go gently into that good night". If whatever kills me takes its time,
>I'll go out a drooling, gibbering madwoman, no doubt.

"Old age scares the shit out of me. And I'm not even 30 yet (but getting
too close for comfort). I refuse to think about protracted illness;
the worst I've ever had was a month-long case of CMV (Mono's younger
cousin). And I agree with your assessment of the old folks who don't
fear death. I don't buy it either. At least, I know *I'LL* never
experience that."

>"I won't kill off my rational side. I -can't-.

"I'm very glad to hear that. Me neither. That's the road far too
many seem to choose..."

>I do my best to live in
>the moment, and slam the door on despair whenever I feel myself giving in
>to it...but the fear is there. It won't go away. And maybe I've become a
>bit desperate. I don't want to delude myself or be deluded. I just want
>something that will give me some hope that I may be wrong. So far, nothing
>in my life has done that. Nothing has shaken my "faith" that death is
>final, oblivion.

Unbe hugs Kestrel long and hard, and then offers a backrub. "Hope
*EXISTS*. We *DON'T* have the answer. The most likely scientific answer
RIGHT NOW, is what you've said. But hope *ALWAYS* exists. Science has
never claimed to be infallible, or to have the Complete Answer (which is
why religionists can't abide it). It's simply the best we can
rationally know. For now. Wait and see. Live your life like there's no
tomorrow, and assume it'll go on forever. I forget who said that." :)

>~*1) Either God exists, or he doesn't.
>~*2) If God doesn't exist, none of this matters, and the best answer to
>~* life is "do the best you can to make the world a better place
>~* for the next guy".
>~*3) If God exists, he's either a God I would approve of, or he's not (the
>~* Fundamentalist Christian idea of God is definitely one I would *NOT*
>~* approve of).
>~*4) If he's a God I don't approve of, then fuck him and the horse he rode
>~* in on. Existance sucks, and I want off this ride.
>
>"I was with you up to here. Existence CAN suck, but it's better than
>nothing (IMO). Immortality would not be a bad deal."

"Nononono, I think you misunderstood. That whole section is dependent on
the initial IF. *IF* God turns out to exist, and be an asshole, then screw
him. Any reality that incorporates a ``Creator'' like this, is not a
reality I wish to partake of. If the answer to life is ``bow down to
this supreme being or burn in hell'', then nonexistence is preferable. I
choose to believe that *IF* a God exists at all, then he's one who
understands, and approves, of those of us who choose to USE our rational
minds rather than ignoring them as religionists do. (He also
understands the religionists, who need a God so much they're willing
to invent one). And therefore, I don't expect this eventuality to ever
come up."

>~*5) If he's a God I do approve of, he'll understand and approve of my rational
>~* approach to life. He won't take offense at my intellectual difficulty
>~* in believing in him without proof. He won't take offense at my
>~* utter disgust of Fundamentalist Christians and their dogma; in fact,
>~* he'll support it. And what does this God say about the best answer to
>~* life? "Do the best you can to make the world a better place for the
>~* next guy."
>
>"This is it. This is where I am. IF there is a God. IF God is a God I
>can approve of. What do I want God to be? This is what I was doing in my
>original post. I just skipped 1-4.

"I need the whole thing to make it work. God may NOT exist. In which
case, we're on our own... and the best we can do is the best we can do.
It's *NOT* futile, though. Others WILL come after us, and making things
better for THEM, while enjoying the most of the life we've got, is our
Prime Directive. And it is (*MUST* be) sufficient."

>I just want to keep reminding myself that I also have no proof
>that there ISN'T a God. That's what that post was all about. I DON'T
>KNOW. Emphasis for my own benefit, because I'm skating a little too close
>to the edge right now.

"Bingo. That's the most sensible thing you've said so far." :)

>It bothers me...it OFFENDS me...that I can't be an
>agnostic at the very least. It's just as ridiculous to be certain of
>oblivion as it is to be certain of God, because WE DON'T KNOW.

"Oh." Some pieces fall into place for Unbe.

The Unbeliever pulls out a button which he owns in RL and shows it to
Kestrel:

Militant agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either!

He feels that that pretty much sums up his attitude... :)

>I get so
>caught up in wondering why there's pain and suffering in the world if
>there's a God that I don't get to the other side...why is there happiness
>and joy if there isn't one? (I'm the only person I know who can preach to
>herself; my mind is like duct tape...there's a light side and a dark side
>and...)

Unbe grins. "Well, now you know someone else who does it. Join the
club." :)

"As for why there's pain, or joy... there just is. Existance is
sufficient. Celebrate it. Any God that exists, obviously isn't much of a
hands-on type of deity. Alternatively, you could think of God as being
what science refers to as the ``laws of nature''. Maybe God really DOES
push every electron, every planet, every sun in their orbits. In that
case, he's just so bloody PREDICTABLE that he's never done anything
spontaneous in the history of the universe. Maybe it's really true that
Thou Art God. We can't know."

"We can't DEDUCE God. Better philosophers than we have worked on the
problem all through recorded history, with no good results.
Religionists have tried to swing folks to THEIR point of view for
centuries, with no good results."

>"I made up things I want to be true because it's better to have a place to
>start than to just flounder. I want to be converted from the religion that
>chose me: Atheism. I don't want to be a Christian, but I want to know,
>not just in my head but in my HEART--that I really have no clue what's
>going to happen. I can't just assume the worst and still live a life worth
>living.

"There's no point to assuming the worst. It's just self-defeating.
You understand, I believe that rationality and science agree with your
assessment. And if there were any way to influence the outcome, my
advice would be different. But as it is, we've got the game board,
we've got the pieces, we've only got the faintest idea of the rules, but
we know they're not up to us. So roll the die and keep moving. Maybe
it's more like a pinball game, and if you do well enough, you get to
play again." :)

>The most intelligent thing I think a person can be with regard to
>religion is an agnostic. I want to get back into that category.

The Unbeliever agrees completely, and since he very much *IS* agnostic,
he offers to help in any way he can.

>~*"Feel free to Email me if you'd like someone to discuss this with,
>~*one-on-one. I'll even give you my phone number if you like. Believe me
>~*that I *KNOW* where you're coming from... You're not alone..."
>
>Kestrel smiles. "I'd dearly love someone to discuss this with. I thought
>I was the only one dealing with this phobia. I'm...slightly unsettled...to
>find out that I'm not. I'd kind of hoped I was an aberration. There's
>never before been anyone who could even -remotely- comprehend the cold, icy
>fear that comes over me when I'm not careful.

Unbe shudders, and nods. "That, if nothing else, I do understand. Fully."

>I think...I think it's a
>good thing not to be alone in this.

"It's *ALWAYS* better to not be alone. Though I've never *QUITE*
convinced Jez of that... Seriously, the offer is genuine. I'd love to
talk to someone else with the same... condition... that I've struggled
with for so long. The one that makes it so impossible to read or watch
CERTAIN things, because you know it will trigger your mind in the wrong
way. Do you have that sentinel software in your head too, that
automatically shies away from certain books or shows that will trigger
you to think too much about death, or (what's almost worse) eternity?"

>"...and I've aliased your email address. In a way, we seem to understand
>one another almost -too- well. I'm half afraid that if we talk, we might
>end up swearing a suicide pact." Kestrel smiles, but it's clear that
>she's only halfway joking.

Unbe brushes her off. "Naaaah. *WORST* that'll happen, for me, is an
increase in ``attack frequency''. I've gotten VERY good at surviving
those. And I'm willing to risk the darkness, if you are..."

>"Thank you for this, Unbeliever..."

*HUGS* "And thank YOU. It's good to have someone to talk to..."

[Leslie]

Having made friends with death some fifteen or so years ago, Leslie
listens to Unbe and Kestrel with increasing worry and concern.

On 16 Nov 1996 01:51:20 GMT in alt.callahans,
Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> said:
+ Meredith L. Giberson <mgib...@genmagic.com> wrote:
+ >"...and I've aliased your email address. In a way, we seem to understand
+ >one another almost -too- well. I'm half afraid that if we talk, we might
+ >end up swearing a suicide pact." Kestrel smiles, but it's clear that
+ >she's only halfway joking.

"You feel suicidal because you're afraid of death?" Leslie asks. "I'm
sorry, but you've got to know how that sounds...."

+ Unbe brushes her off. "Naaaah. *WORST* that'll happen, for me, is an
+ increase in ``attack frequency''. I've gotten VERY good at surviving
+ those. And I'm willing to risk the darkness, if you are..."

"I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see the two of you just sitting around
suffering like this. Anytime ANYONE has a problem that interfers with
their normal, day-to-day functioning like this has a PROBLEM. If this is
preventing you from living your lives to the fullest, if it's interfering
with you living your lives the way you really want to live them, then I
can only very *strongly* urge you both to look into getting some kind of
therapy or counselling to teach you how to deal with this, or perhaps
even cure you of the phobia aspects altogether.

"Don't let this ruin even a *part* of your lives. Life is, you will
have noticed, too short to be wasting time suffering from fears which can
be vanquished -- *if* you get the right kind of help, to teach you how.

"Please, please, think about it? It makes me unhappy to think of you
suffering needlessly."

Leslie.
--
** Find the alt.callahans FAQs here ---> http://www.io.org/~deirdre/ **
* "Why -admit- it?" "Because it's -true-. Because we're here to get *
* telepathic, and we can't have telepathy based on bullshit." *
**** If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane -- Jimmy Buffett ****

[Reed Byers]

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Leslie wrote:

> Having made friends with death some fifteen or so years ago, Leslie
> listens to Unbe and Kestrel with increasing worry and concern.

The Unbeliever arches an eyebrow at that "friends with death" bit, but
says nothing.

> "You feel suicidal because you're afraid of death?" Leslie asks. "I'm
> sorry, but you've got to know how that sounds...."

"Not as strange as you think. Hopelessness... despair... futility... are
all perfectly common reasons for contemplating suicide. If I weren't so
good at avoiding thinking about death, I'd probably consider it myself.
Those attacks, while purely psychological, are *BAD*."

> "I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see the two of you just sitting around
> suffering like this. Anytime ANYONE has a problem that interfers with
> their normal, day-to-day functioning like this has a PROBLEM.

"Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
Kestrel and I have. Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of
life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),
all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality. Kestrel
and I just can't buy into those answers, even though we envy the
followers of those beliefs for NOT having those worries."

"Speaking just for me, the attacks don't interfere with DAY-TO-DAY
functioning. When it DOES crop up (generally on the order of once a
month, though it all depends on whatever brings the thought to mind to
begin with), I can usually beat the thought out of my head (mentally; no
physical violence is implied), or at worst, call and talk to someone else
(Jez). It's only been fairly recently that I could even TALK about the
attacks without taking the mental leap to the SUBJECT that causes them,
and thus actually causing one inadvertantly."

> If this is
> preventing you from living your lives to the fullest, if it's interfering
> with you living your lives the way you really want to live them, then I
> can only very *strongly* urge you both to look into getting some kind of
> therapy or counselling to teach you how to deal with this, or perhaps
> even cure you of the phobia aspects altogether.

Unbe half-snickers. "Of course, talking about it in any greater depth
than I'm currently doing would trigger the very attack I'm trying to
avoid..."

> "Don't let this ruin even a *part* of your lives. Life is, you will
> have noticed, too short to be wasting time suffering from fears which can
> be vanquished -- *if* you get the right kind of help, to teach you how.

Unbe sighs. "I also have VERY little faith in therapists."

> "Please, please, think about it? It makes me unhappy to think of you
> suffering needlessly."

"I just don't see a path from HERE to THERE. Therapists can't change the
nature of the universe. And I just don't *SEE* being comfortable with
such a large unknown..."

"And if a therapist tried to hook me on religion as an answer, I might
just have to kill her..."

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-

[mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov]

"Reed, I in no way wish to minimize, dismiss or ridicule the problems
this causes you and Kestrel."

Reed Byers <bye...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
>"Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
>Kestrel and I have.

"I hope you will forgive me if I take some umbrage at your usage of
crap. You seem upset, so you may or may not mean it. If you don't
I would ask you to be, hmmm ?more sensitive?, if you do...
Trebor's lips turn up in a half smile, "well, I will happily forgive
you for taking umbrage at my telling you that you are full of crap."

>Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of
>life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),
>all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality.

"One problem with this comment is that Judeism started out without
an afterlife, and even at the time of Jesus one of the major factions
did not believe in an afterlife."

"It may be that many people are drawn to the various and sundry beliefs
you list because it gives them comfort, but to say that such beliefs
'all exist primarily' for this reason seems a bit arrogant."

>"I just don't see a path from HERE to THERE. Therapists can't change the
>nature of the universe. And I just don't *SEE* being comfortable with
>such a large unknown..."

"Perhaps there is a reason (about which you are unaware) that you are
so uncomfortable and perhaps a therapist can help you find that reason
and deal with it."

"Then again, perhaps not."

>"And if a therapist tried to hook me on religion as an answer,

"/That/ would be highly unethical."

"and possibly worthy of a complaint to the ethics board."

>I might just have to kill her..."

"OTOH, given the recent threads I fail to be amused by this comment
(preferring to ignore the rather more disturbing prospect that you
are serious)"

[P. Kight]

Reed Byers wrote:
>
>
> "Speaking just for me, the attacks don't interfere with DAY-TO-DAY
> functioning. When it DOES crop up (generally on the order of once a
> month, though it all depends on whatever brings the thought to mind to
> begin with), I can usually beat the thought out of my head (mentally; no
> physical violence is implied), or at worst, call and talk to someone else
> (Jez). It's only been fairly recently that I could even TALK about the
> attacks without taking the mental leap to the SUBJECT that causes them,
> and thus actually causing one inadvertantly."

Jezebel, who missed most of the first of this discussion (see what
happens when you leave town for a couple of days?) reaches over and rubs
the Unbeliever's neck. She's a bit ashamed to admit that, while her
sweetie has discussed his Death-dread with her before, she wasn't really
aware that *that* was what gives him the occasional existential
heebie-jeebies.

The Spinster sighs. Death is no friend of hers ... he's stolen away too
many friends. But she suspects that, like Leslie, she's at least begun
to come to terms with him. (She also suspects that this is one of those
"getting older" things that people *do*, necessarily, in order to make
the latter halves of their lives bearable. And thus a subject on which
she's never going to be of much comfort to her Young Man ... )

Leslie suggests therapy as a possibility.

> Unbe half-snickers. "Of course, talking about it in any greater depth
> than I'm currently doing would trigger the very attack I'm trying to
> avoid..."

Jez takes Unbe by the shoulders and looks into his eyes. "Facing demons
is the *only* way to tame them into submission, love. If on nothing
else, trust me on this one. You know I've been there."

> "I just don't see a path from HERE to THERE. Therapists can't change the
> nature of the universe. And I just don't *SEE* being comfortable with
> such a large unknown..."

Jez starts to speak ... and stops, her mouth half open. This is a point
where, all her love for him to the contrary, her view of the universe
and her place in it diverges sharply from Unbe's. The very thing that
terrifies him - the scope and "unknowable-ness" of the universe - has
always been, for her, a source of wonder ... and even, in ways that are
hard for her to explain, comfort.

The best she can do, for the moment, is offer him a big hug ...

--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org

[Firesong]

Firesong notes that Reed Byers spake thusly.

>"Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem

>Kestrel and I have. Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of

>life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),

>all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality. Kestrel
>and I just can't buy into those answers, even though we envy the
>followers of those beliefs for NOT having those worries."

Ummm, Unbe. I should like to point out that whilst your statement _may_
be true of some people (into religion _primarily_ to avoid mortality),
it is not true of either myself nor most of the young christians that I
know. (or indeed the young Wiccans) (double funny, felt no need to
capitalise my own religion) I am not 'into' christianity for the then, I
am 'into' it for the _now_.

I am still youngish and secure in my physical immortality, I 'do'
christianity for its reassurance that I do not have to stand alone _in
life_ not in death.

Others _may_ be doing religion for promise of life after death as you
say, but not all of us. (Nor, from the attitudes I find in my social
discussions with other religious people with most of them).

This is no reflection on your doubtless real fears nor your belief in
the effectiveness of religion as a salve to them, just your impression
that those of us 'here' are here to stave off the same fears.

>"And if a therapist tried to hook me on religion as an answer, I might

>just have to kill her..."
>

Good move, send a scouting party. <G>

Firesong

>
>
> Be True...
> -=*> Unbeliever <*=-

--
New Web Page : http://www.firesong.demon.co.uk/
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[The Renaissance Man]

mgib...@genmagic.com (Meredith L. Giberson) wrote:
] "Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the

] physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
] be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
] experience things. Just...nothing.
]
] "So, to combat that fear, I decided that I needed to believe something.
] The typical Christian dogma was out--I'd been trying to believe it since
] birth, and failing more miserably every year. The closest I could come was
] admitting that most of the Ten Commandments were pretty decent rules, in
] most circumstances. Not exactly the unshakeable foundation of faith
] demanded by the Church.

"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
discordianism?"

He grins puckishly, and does not elaborate further....

--
NRA, NRA-ILA, NRA-SATF, GOA, GOC, CRPA, CCRKBA, SAF, LEAA, NRAMC-SV
SMTP: ala...@babcom.com Phil V. Stracchino
HTTP: //www.babcom.com/jwz/alaric/ The Renaissance Man
ICBM: 121d.84'12" W, 37d.31'47" N. [this space reserved]
*** PGP _must_ be a good idea -- just look at who's against it! ***

[Unbeliever]

In article <56qr70$dfg$1...@info1.fnal.gov>, <mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV> wrote:
>"Reed, I in no way wish to minimize, dismiss or ridicule the problems
>this causes you and Kestrel."

The Unbeliever looks startled at the use of his RL name in the Place, and
glances around in the hopes that nobody heard. Then, he gives a smile
and a nod that indicates that he will not take offense at anything
not intended to be offensive...

>Reed Byers <bye...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
>>"Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
>>Kestrel and I have.
>

>"I hope you will forgive me if I take some umbrage at your usage of
>crap. You seem upset, so you may or may not mean it. If you don't
>I would ask you to be, hmmm ?more sensitive?, if you do...
>Trebor's lips turn up in a half smile, "well, I will happily forgive
>you for taking umbrage at my telling you that you are full of crap."

Unbe considers his answer. "So long the implied subject matter of my
sentence remains as I intended it (i.e. supernatural beliefs of various
forms, including but not limited to religion), then I stand by my stated
view that it is all crap. Not *ENTIRELY* useless, as it does seem to
inspire some good deeds and intents. But since it inspires an equal
amount of evil as it does good (see: Crusades, Dark Ages, Salem Witch
Trials, Spanish Inquisition, Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, to
name but a few examples), the good alone cannot justify it. And since
religion/superstition are poor paths for acquiring actual truth (see:
Galileo, Creationism, Dark Ages, etc), I feel that the derogatory term
``crap'' is more than justified."

"My usual feeling is that anybody who takes offense at my saying this is
at best brainwashed and intellectually lazy, or at worst, an
intentional propagator of known hogwash in an attempt to sucker the
masses in a play for money or political power. But since my intention is
not to cause offense in this of all places, and since I do not personally
know the overwhelming majority of those hearing my voice right now, I
will be happy to add ``present company excepted'' and let it go at that.
I'm not StM; I do not thrive on hurt feelings or derive any benefit from
beating others up verbally. I hope no offense has been taken by any
of this..."

>"One problem with this comment is that Judeism started out without
>an afterlife, and even at the time of Jesus one of the major factions
>did not believe in an afterlife."
>
>"It may be that many people are drawn to the various and sundry beliefs
>you list because it gives them comfort, but to say that such beliefs
>'all exist primarily' for this reason seems a bit arrogant."

"Possibly. But I'm in good company."

"None other than Isaac Asimov wrote an essay (entitled ``Knock Plastic!'',
and most recently anthologized with his last fantasy short stories in a
book entitled ``Magic'' published by HarperPrism). In this essay, he
referred to one of the main purposes of religion as being to support
``security beliefs'' (i.e. things we humans WANT to believe so much that
we are fully capable of believing them without any real proof, and in
spite of a good amount of evidence to the contrary). Even without
life-after-death, Judeism (is that the right spelling?) addresses many
of these security beliefs, and is thus highly suspicious as originating
in MAN, rather than in some greater deity. In his essay, Asimov listed
the security beliefs as..."

1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
protecting mankind.

2) There is no such thing, really, as death.

3) There is some purpose to the universe.

4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
for nothing.

5) You are better than the next fellow.

6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.

"I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many of these is
addressed by his or her PARTICULAR religion, and to decide how much he or
she can REALLY trust in a religion that is so... well crafted... as to
answer so many of Mankind's psychological needs so well..."

>>I might just have to kill her..."
>

>"OTOH, given the recent threads I fail to be amused by this comment
>(preferring to ignore the rather more disturbing prospect that you
>are serious)"

"I knew when I said that, that it was rotten timing for such a remark.
I said it anyway, hoping it would be taken as merely an off-the-cuff
attempt at humor..."

The Unbeliever sighs, considers ordering another eggnog from Mike,
glances down at his ever-expanding waistline, sighs again, and flops
down into his chair, drinkless...

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-

EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

P.S. The original thread topic is now well and firmly committed to Email
between Kestrel and myself. We'll let you know how things work out.
Maybe.

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

The Unbe wrote:

8<snip>8

> "Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem

> Kestrel and I have. Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of
> life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),
> all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality. Kestrel
> and I just can't buy into those answers, even though we envy the
> followers of those beliefs for NOT having those worries."

Actually, I suspect that some practitioners worry MORE about the
afterlife (whatever shape they think it may take) BECAUSE of their
beliefs.

While this may not be helpful to you at the present time, may I share
how I deal with it?

I don't.

I long ago came to the conclusion that I can't do anything about it one
way or the other. This is because I believe so strongly in the
sovereignty of God: when (and if) the time comes that I am to be
judged, if I am found wanting then so be it. I do my best to live my
life with integrity and in accordance with what I perceive God's wishes
to be. If I got it all wrong, either God will understand WHY (because
God knew what I had to start with and what I had to deal with in my
life) and grant me mercy (in theologese: justified by faith through
grace) or God will condemn me.

But I refuse to treat God as one who I can control by virtue of having
the secret password--or in any other way.

And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.

At any rate, I do not (for now at least) fear death.

But neither do I welcome it prematurely (well, most of the time,
anyway--I've had my bouts--'nuff said for now).

8<snip>8

> Unbe sighs. "I also have VERY little faith in therapists."

Yep. You have to find a good one--and they are like rare and precious
gems. The real trick is to be certain that you've found a good one
rather than one who happens to agree with you.

8<snip>8
> "And if a therapist tried to hook me on religion as an answer, I might

> just have to kill her..."

If a therapist is trying to hook you up with something, it's time to
find a new therapist. Why should you pay them for the privilige of
hearing them grind THEIR axe? They're supposed to be helping you to
hone YOURS.

Barthel

[Laura Rey]

The Unbe wrote:

<And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
<it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
<sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.

"I vowed (g)...that I would not get into this thread, but I just can't
pass up this particular soapbox" Laura smiles, and hops up on said box.
"Heaven will not be like that....it just can't be. I too would go
insane. On a more serious note, I am fairly convinced that humanity's
notions of heaven, more often than not, simply reflect the very best think
they can think of in their lives. They use it as a metaphor for heaven.
For some folks that means being reunited with family, for others (who
suffer from poverty) that means living in a place where the streets are
paved with gold, for still others that means not having to work so hard
and having time to lay around on a grassy knoll and sing hymns. It really
does matter what your economic/social/current lifestyle/gender is.
Personnally, as someone who is a workaholic, is lonely, and hates
conflict, Callahans would make a pretty darn nice heaven for me....God of
course would tend bar."

Having said that, Laura hears a voice in her head reminding her that she
is not in church and should quit preaching. "Sorry 'bout that....but
theology and people are truly where my passion lies. When they come
together in conscious ways, I get sort of excited."

Joe looks at her and barks twice. Laura looks around and then see the
chalkboard at the end of the room in the corner. "Do I have to?" Joe
barks again. "Oh, okay. Excuse me folks while I go write "I will not
preach in Callahan's 25 times."

Laura

[John Barnstead]

Laura Rey (Rev...@aol.com) wrote:
: The Unbe wrote:

: <And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
: <it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
: <sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.

: "I vowed (g)...that I would not get into this thread, but I just can't
: pass up this particular soapbox" Laura smiles, and hops up on said box.
: "Heaven will not be like that....it just can't be. I too would go
: insane. On a more serious note, I am fairly convinced that humanity's
: notions of heaven, more often than not, simply reflect the very best think
: they can think of in their lives. They use it as a metaphor for heaven.

[An excerpt from "The Thoughts of Chairman Pernicious":]

What is Heaven Like?

Many of its restaurants are German:
Apfelstrudel, Schlag, Gemutlichkeit
Relayed to hubsche Jungen every night
in pairs at tables hymned by Ethel Merman.
None but the cognoscenti know that Hermann,
a headwaiter since adolescence, might
get his comeuppance Tuesday. On the right -
grand busts acquired at great expense from Sherman,
late of Atlanta; on the left - a sight
a gambler would be struck by: mounds of cards,
Zabels Kafka played at, dice, roulette;
overhead a gross expanse of light
verges on blinding both the sexy guards -
and there's a sign: I zdes' nadezhdy net.*

[*Russian: "There's no hope here, either"]

20 February 1986

[Mike Bloy]

ala...@babylon5.babcom.com (The Renaissance Man) wrote:
>"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
> discordianism?"
>He grins puckishly, and does not elaborate further....

Elm grins, too. "Hail Eris!"

"Hey, Mike! Can you get me a hotdog, no bun?"

--
Mr. Mammamoto, the famous Japanese, can swallow his own nose
Mike Bloy | Elminster | bl...@cs.wisc.edu
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bloy | Finger for PGP public key.

[barbara trumpinski]

>}
>}
>}"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
>} discordianism?"

ut:
> "HAIL ERIS!"

kitten recites the creed of eris:

i am chaos. i am the substance from which your artists and scientists
build rhythms. i am the spirit with which your children and clowns
laugh in happy anarchy. i am chaos. i am alive, and i tell you you
are free.

--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu barbara trumpinski
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} "i will outline up to the event horizon" l.m.bujold
~

[mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov]

bl...@cs.wisc.edu (Mike Bloy) writes:
>ala...@babylon5.babcom.com (The Renaissance Man) wrote:

>>"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
>> discordianism?"

>>He grins puckishly, and does not elaborate further....
>
>Elm grins, too. "Hail Eris!"
>
>"Hey, Mike! Can you get me a hotdog, no bun?"

Trebor smiles, "I am closer to the Pattern walkers in philosophy
myself, but am quite happy to have Eris's followers confusing those
who would control."

[Laura Rey]

him wrote:

>>Laura Rey <Rev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>conflict, Callahans would make a pretty darn nice heaven for me....God of
>>course would tend bar."

>"No." Al says. "MIKE would tend bar. God could be darts champion, if he
>wanted."

>Big Al. But he'd have to beat me, first.

Okay fine....God leaves Mike in charge of the bar, then She grabs
her GoodWench jacket and she heads to the hot tub to be with the
rest of the GoodWenchs.

Laura

--
also known as the Reverend Laura Rey, and "that lady preacher"
(Hey, I live in the south...)

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over in the same way, and
expecting different results

[Zaphkiel]

In article <3292E7...@ptdprolog.net>, "Kevin says...

>
>The Unbe wrote:
>
>8<snip>8
>> "Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
>> Kestrel and I have. Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of
>> life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),
>> all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality. Kestrel
>> and I just can't buy into those answers, even though we envy the
>> followers of those beliefs for NOT having those worries."
>
>Actually, I suspect that some practitioners worry MORE about the
>afterlife (whatever shape they think it may take) BECAUSE of their
>beliefs.
>
>While this may not be helpful to you at the present time, may I share
>how I deal with it?
>
>I don't.
>
>I long ago came to the conclusion that I can't do anything about it one
>way or the other. This is because I believe so strongly in the
>sovereignty of God: when (and if) the time comes that I am to be
>judged, if I am found wanting then so be it. I do my best to live my
>life with integrity and in accordance with what I perceive God's wishes
>to be. If I got it all wrong, either God will understand WHY (because
>God knew what I had to start with and what I had to deal with in my
>life) and grant me mercy (in theologese: justified by faith through
>grace) or God will condemn me.

What he said.

>And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
>it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
>sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.

Perhaps that is the secret of reincarnation. Heaven is so perfect, that
after a while you're willing to volunteer for *anything*, even more pain
and suffering on earth.

--Zaphkiel

[Mike <insert quote here> Bartman]

In article <56vbn3$3k...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, bl...@cs.wisc.edu (Mike Bloy) took the time to say:

>ala...@babylon5.babcom.com (The Renaissance Man) wrote:
>>"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
>> discordianism?"
>>He grins puckishly, and does not elaborate further....
>
>Elm grins, too. "Hail Eris!"

"All hail discordia!"

>"Hey, Mike! Can you get me a hotdog, no bun?"

"The zen master approaches the hotdog vendor and says, 'Can you make me one
with everything?'"

--Berek "strange daze" Halfaxe--

==============================================================================
| I didn't really say all the things that I said. You probably didn't read |
| what you thought you read. Statistics show that this whole thing is more |
| than likely just a hideous misunderstanding. |
==============================================================================

==============================================================================
Orwell was an optimist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[P. Kight]

Laura Rey wrote:
>

> Having said that, Laura hears a voice in her head reminding her that she
> is not in church and should quit preaching. "Sorry 'bout that....but
> theology and people are truly where my passion lies. When they come
> together in conscious ways, I get sort of excited."

"But, but, but ... " Jezebel tries to snag Laura by the sleeve before
she gets *too* involved in writing "I will not preach" on the
chalkboard. "Laura, it's *fine* to engage your passions in here! Some
days it's damned near mandatory!

"Now, I can see that this Place might represent a vacation for you from
the *responsibilities* of your work ... but if, as you say, theology and
people are what you're *about*, then how could we object if you express
those things?

"If an itinerant 'Net preacher were to wander in here, stand up on a
table and begin haranguing us, some of us might get a little cranky
(more of us would probably start weaving stories and jokes around the
occasion). But *lots* of folx bring their personal theologies (or lack
thereof) into conversations here, and that's fine! Um -- I'm not saying
you wouldn't be *challenged* on those theories, but if you're up to
defending your beliefs, then go for it!"

--Jezebel
opinionated as hell, and hating to see anyone else deny herself the
opportunity
kig...@peak.org

[Unbeliever]

In article <1G30wMA0...@firesong.demon.co.uk>,
Firesong <fire...@firesong.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ummm, Unbe. I should like to point out that whilst your statement _may_
>be true of some people (into religion _primarily_ to avoid mortality),
>it is not true of either myself nor most of the young christians that I
>know. (or indeed the young Wiccans) (double funny, felt no need to
>capitalise my own religion) I am not 'into' christianity for the then, I
>am 'into' it for the _now_.

Unbe shakes his head. "I should have made that statement more clear, I
can tell. I didn't mean to imply anything about the CONSCIOUS reason
people join religions. But generally, the APPEAL of religion is that it
provides an artificial comfort (i.e. not based in solid, provable fact).
See another branch of this thread, where I discuss Asimov's ``Security
Beliefs'', for more on this. Basically, since we don't have PROOF of
various things that we really want to be true, we tend to shrug and
choose to believe them ANYWAY. If religion didn't fill emotional need, it
wouldn't exist. At all. Think about it. And if there were actual
REASON to believe these things, it wouldn't be religion anymore. It
would be SCIENCE."

[Unbeliever]

In article <3290DA...@peak.org>, P. Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:

>Jezebel, who missed most of the first of this discussion (see what
>happens when you leave town for a couple of days?) reaches over and rubs
>the Unbeliever's neck.

...which he gratefully accepts, and which causes him to make the MOST
un-Unbelike purring sounds... :)

>(She also suspects that this is one of those
>"getting older" things that people *do*, necessarily, in order to make
>the latter halves of their lives bearable. And thus a subject on which
>she's never going to be of much comfort to her Young Man ... )

The Unbeliever sighs and nods. Though he personally doubts age will ever
help HIM cope, he's glad it has that effect on others... and who knows,
it *MIGHT* help Unbe as well... someday...

>Jez takes Unbe by the shoulders and looks into his eyes. "Facing demons
>is the *only* way to tame them into submission, love. If on nothing
>else, trust me on this one. You know I've been there."

"Yes, I do. And I agree that running away from your problems is NEVER a
good idea. On the other hand... I can't begin to imagine what a
therapist might say that could change anything. ``Don't be afraid, it's
just part of life''? ``You can't do anything about it, might as well
not worry about it''? ``How you face death is at least as important as
how you face life''? Geez, now I'm quoting Star Trek. But you see what
I mean? I'm fairly well-read and educated. ``Don't Worry Be Happy''
just aint gonna cut it."

>Jez starts to speak ... and stops, her mouth half open. This is a point
>where, all her love for him to the contrary, her view of the universe
>and her place in it diverges sharply from Unbe's. The very thing that
>terrifies him - the scope and "unknowable-ness" of the universe - has
>always been, for her, a source of wonder ... and even, in ways that are
>hard for her to explain, comfort.

"The unknowableness of the UNIVERSE isn't what bothers me; I can fully
enjoy and appreciate THAT. The unknowableness of PERSONAL EXISTANCE is
another matter. Neither death *NOR* eternal life has appeal to me. And
even ``eternal'' life can't really be eternal, I mean, the universe ITSELF
will end someday, right?"

Unbe starts to shudder, and forces his mind to think about something else
for awhile...

[him.]

In article <RevRey-2011...@ip193.louisville.ky.interramp.com>,

[him.]

In article <RevRey-2011...@ip151.louisville.ky.interramp.com>,
Laura Rey <Rev...@aol.com> wrote:

>him wrote:
>>>Laura Rey <Rev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>conflict, Callahans would make a pretty darn nice heaven for me....God of
>>>course would tend bar."
>>"No." Al says. "MIKE would tend bar. God could be darts champion, if he
>>wanted."

>Okay fine....God leaves Mike in charge of the bar, then She grabs
>her GoodWench jacket and she heads to the hot tub to be with the
>rest of the GoodWenchs.

"Fair enough." Al replies.

Big Al. I wonder if Vatican II was like this.

[Shonias]

Shonias is intrigued by this list of points, and always one to fill
in the quiz...

In article <56tq7r$s...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
> protecting mankind.

Sort of... but not exactly, and not so much protect as... be a part of
or something.

>2) There is no such thing, really, as death.

Again sort of, wwell actually, yes.

>3) There is some purpose to the universe.

Apart from to exist? No.
What other purpose do you need? :)

>4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
> for nothing.

No, definitely not.

>5) You are better than the next fellow.

No.

>6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.

No.

>"I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many of these is
>addressed by his or her PARTICULAR religion, and to decide how much he or
>she can REALLY trust in a religion that is so... well crafted... as to
>answer so many of Mankind's psychological needs so well..."

That was fun, apparently my religion was invented to fend off fears of
death but not much else, fair enough, I find it useful and I don't
think it does any "good" or "evil" really, it's too.... individual
or something. Hmmmm, where does that leave it?

Can I buy you one of my special calorie free drinks? All the yummy
fatty stuff, but not an absorbed calorie in sight! :)

Shonias
(who is used to people laughing at her religion and calling it crap)

--
*******************************
Then you hear the music
And it all comes crystal clear,
Music does the talking and says
The things you want to hear.
*******************************

[Lissa & Eric McCollum]

Unbeliever wrote:
> >"I hope you will

> Unbe considers his answer. "So long the implied subject matter of my
> sentence remains as I intended it (i.e. supernatural beliefs of various
> forms, including but not limited to religion), then I stand by my stated
> view that it is all crap. Not *ENTIRELY* useless, as it does seem to
> inspire some good deeds and intents. But since it inspires an equal
> amount of evil as it does good (see: Crusades, Dark Ages, Salem Witch
> Trials, Spanish Inquisition, Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, to
> name but a few examples), the good alone cannot justify it. And since
> religion/superstition are poor paths for acquiring actual truth (see:
> Galileo, Creationism, Dark Ages, etc), I feel that the derogatory term
> ``crap'' is more than justified."

Lissa starts to open her mouth, closes it to think better of it,
then opens it again anyway. "Umm...I have a nit to pick with a
couple of your examples of the evil inspired by religion. Specifically
the term 'Dark Ages'. I assume you mean the time in Medieval Europe
between the falling of the Roman empire, and the Rennaisance? That
wasn't caused by religion. I'm sure the history buffs here could
give a better idea of the cause of the Dark Ages, but I thought that
the church was actually one of the institutions that kept knowledge
alive during that time period? I guess I'm not sure what you mean
here."

"As for the Crusades--I was taught that they were actually economics
thinly disguised as religion. Again, I'm not really the one to debate
the virtues of the Crusades with (I'd have to go pull out the history
books, and they're in boxes in the in-laws' garage), but I don't think
it is fair to totally blame/credit religion on that one."

"I guess I just have a problem to broad brushes, without knowing exactly
what you mean to be painting. Could you explain?"

Lissa

[Lissa & Eric McCollum]

Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. wrote:
>
> And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
> it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
> sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.
>

"One of the sermons I remember most took a section of scripture
from Revelation about heaven. (Sorry--don't have my Bible handy.
Something about Jerusalem.) The minister interpreted it to
say that heaven was even better than the best party you could
ever imagine. I kind of liked that, and it stuck. So now I think
of heaven as one giant, wonderful, ongoing parrrrty!"

Lissa

[Kathryn Holmes]

Laura Rey (Rev...@aol.com) wrote:

: Joe looks at her and barks twice. Laura looks around and then see the

: chalkboard at the end of the room in the corner. "Do I have to?" Joe
: barks again. "Oh, okay. Excuse me folks while I go write "I will not
: preach in Callahan's 25 times."

Does this mean you will preach 24 times or 26 times?

--Shadowdancer

[Claudia Marie]

Rev...@aol.com (Laura Rey) writes:
>Joe looks at her and barks twice. Laura looks around and then see the
>chalkboard at the end of the room in the corner. "Do I have to?" Joe
>barks again. "Oh, okay. Excuse me folks while I go write "I will not
>preach in Callahan's 25 times."

Claudia nods approvingly. "But if you preach only once, or twice, or
26 times, that's okay."

Claudia winks at the NITPICKers.

[Anne Gwin]

In article <5730hb$j...@news.orst.edu>, bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) wrote:

> In article <329401...@primenet.com>,

> Lissa & Eric McCollum <eri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Lissa starts to open her mouth, closes it to think better of it,
> >then opens it again anyway. "Umm...I have a nit to pick with a
> >couple of your examples of the evil inspired by religion. Specifically
> >the term 'Dark Ages'. I assume you mean the time in Medieval Europe
> >between the falling of the Roman empire, and the Rennaisance? That
> >wasn't caused by religion. I'm sure the history buffs here could
> >give a better idea of the cause of the Dark Ages, but I thought that
> >the church was actually one of the institutions that kept knowledge
> >alive during that time period? I guess I'm not sure what you mean
> >here."
>

> The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
> if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
> long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
> superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
> stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
> deserves no credit for the act."

Anne hears the name of her beloved medieval era taken in vain and decides
to jump in. Looking kind of upset, she says, "Er, uh...they weren't
'Dark,' y'all. And they were only 'Middle' because they were between the
'light' of the Romans and the 'light' of the Renaissance, and later, the
'Enlightenment.' The medieval era, Middle Ages, just _don't_ call them the
Dark Ages...this time was _1000_ years long--or longer. My favorite dates
are 476 (fall of Rome) to 1602 (death of Elizabeth), although the Ren
started in the 14th cent in Italy and the 15th in France. And it was the
Renaissance writers who coined the term 'Dark Ages.' It's easier to rebel
against your fathers if you demonize them first, you see.

"I'd like to know where the Church buried knowledge during my 1000-yr
window. Galileo's problems occurred during the Italian Renaissance, I
think, or as near as dammit, when the Church was _losing_ its hold. I'm
not arguing about the Church's decadence, Unbe, just that you're imputing
to the whole of Western Europe a particular mindset, a monolithic state of
things, that just wasn't there.

"In fact I have a whole set of counterexamples, but this soapbox is kinda
shaky. This is one of my buttons, I'm afraid. I'll just leave you with
Hildegard von Bingen and a couple of Sephardic love songs playing on Radio
Free Colorado."

--
Machine shared by Anne Gwin (ag...@mail.utexas.edu) and Nyarlathotep (nyarla...@mail.utexas.edu). Sometimes we forget to change the name on the post.

"ZOG!!"--The Brady Bunch Tiki

"Where do you want to go today?"--Micro$oft Explorer
"Never ask that question..."--Kosh

[Laura Rey]

Kathryn Holmes wrote:
>
> Laura Rey (Rev...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Joe looks at her and barks twice. Laura looks around and then see the

> : chalkboard at the end of the room in the corner. "Do I have to?" Joe
> : barks again. "Oh, okay. Excuse me folks while I go write "I will not
> : preach in Callahan's 25 times."
>

> Does this mean you will preach 24 times or 26 times?
>
>

Sigh....nit pick...nit pick... :) I'm surprised Rose hasn't said
anything yet!

Laura

[Sasquatch]

Mike <insert quote here> Bartman wrote:
/
/ In article <56vbn3$3k...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, bl...@cs.wisc.edu (Mike

Bloy) took the time to say:

/ >ala...@babylon5.babcom.com (The Renaissance Man) wrote:
/ >>"Just as a thought," Alaric answers at last, "have you considered
/ >> discordianism?"
/ >>He grins puckishly, and does not elaborate further....
/ >
/ >Elm grins, too. "Hail Eris!"
/
/ "All hail discordia!"
/
/ >"Hey, Mike! Can you get me a hotdog, no bun?"
/
/ "The zen master approaches the hotdog vendor and says, 'Can you make
me one
/ with everything?'"
/
/ --Berek "strange daze" Halfaxe--
<snip sig>

Boing! You're sane and I'm not... no thanks, I don't want to trade.

The Sasquatch
Episkopos, Mythical Creature Cabal
Legionnaire Priest of Dynamic Discord
=POPE= and Saint Second Class

[Pat Kight]

In article <RevRey-2011...@ip151.louisville.ky.interramp.com>,
Laura Rey <Rev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Okay fine....God leaves Mike in charge of the bar, then She grabs
>her GoodWench jacket and she heads to the hot tub to be with the
>rest of the GoodWenchs.
>

"Whoooooaaaa..." Jezebel's eyes widen. "God is a GoodWench ... What a
concept! I *like* it..."

--Jez
(Well, our Patron thinks God is an Iron, so why not?)
kig...@peak.org

[Unbeliever]

In article <329401...@primenet.com>,
Lissa & Eric McCollum <eri...@primenet.com> wrote:

>Lissa starts to open her mouth, closes it to think better of it,
>then opens it again anyway. "Umm...I have a nit to pick with a
>couple of your examples of the evil inspired by religion. Specifically
>the term 'Dark Ages'. I assume you mean the time in Medieval Europe
>between the falling of the Roman empire, and the Rennaisance? That
>wasn't caused by religion. I'm sure the history buffs here could
>give a better idea of the cause of the Dark Ages, but I thought that
>the church was actually one of the institutions that kept knowledge
>alive during that time period? I guess I'm not sure what you mean
>here."

The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
deserves no credit for the act."

"A good source (if you can withstand the author's verbosity) is at:"

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/
joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/

"Mind you, this is a 32-chapter full frontal assault on Christianity, but
it will serve as a starting point to see that the Church hasn't been the
bastion of Truth and Light that it has pretended to be. There is one
full chapter on the Dark Ages, another on the Inquisition, another on the
Witch Burnings, another on the Renaissance and the Crusades... you get
the idea. None of it is very flattering."

>"As for the Crusades--I was taught that they were actually economics
>thinly disguised as religion. Again, I'm not really the one to debate
>the virtues of the Crusades with (I'd have to go pull out the history
>books, and they're in boxes in the in-laws' garage), but I don't think
>it is fair to totally blame/credit religion on that one."

"One. Religion must take the lumps, if it's going to claim the credit."

"Two. Economics explains almost every event in the history of the world, if
you look long and hard enough."

"Three. How do you ``disguise something as religion''? Either the
religious group in question claimed responsibility for the deeds, or it
didn't."

"The Crusades were totally, thoroughly Christian. As was the
Spanish Inquisition. As were the Salem Witch Trials. Christianity was
responsible for the ``Dark'' of the Dark Ages. It is the greatest irony
of our world that a religion that claims so much enlightenment and
tolerance, whose founder theoretically taught his followers to love thy
neighbor and turn the other cheek, has historically been a leading source of
violence, hatred, bigotry and bloodshed in the world. You have but to
watch Jerry Falwell preach hatred of homosexuals, or witness the
Christian Coalition's unashamed gall in trying to usurp the Republican
party (and through it, the U.S. Government itself), to know that to this
day, Christianity has not changed its fundamental nature."

"*HOW* long did it take the Vatican to acknowledge that perhaps it had
been in error in persecuting Galileo? Or that maybe, just maybe, all of
the biological scientists since Darwin might *JUST* have had the right idea
concerning evolution after all? Christianity has no great claim on the
support of science and reason..."

>"I guess I just have a problem to broad brushes, without knowing exactly
>what you mean to be painting. Could you explain?"

"It's hard to deal with religion EXCEPT with broad brushes. Especially
in an online discussion group such as this. I could try and hunt down
more source material, or you could... we could turn this thread into a
History Of The World course... but that will not be satisfactory for
anyone. I say, take an unbiased look at the influence of Christianity in
the world, and try to tell me that we wouldn't have been better off without
it. HINT: Christians didn't invent morality; they just think they did."

The Unbeliever stops and thinks for a moment.

"You know, *MOST* of my point in all this is simply definitional. The
realm of science in the provable. The realm of religion (and
superstition; same thing as far as I'm concerned) is the unprovable.
Obviously. If any religion could PROVE itself, it would become
science."

"Now, maybe I've just got Occam's Razor too firmly imbedded in my
skull, but I've never been able to make myself accept an unnecessary
hypothesis. The presence or absence of God makes no DIFFERENCE; no
provable event in the history of the world has ever REQUIRED a God to be
explainable. So how can you justify ``knowing the unknowable''? You
can't. You WANT your religion to be true, so you defend it. But if
wishes were horses, then beggars would ride..."

Unbe, who looks like he's not at all sure that he made the point he
intended to, sits down and shuts up... for now...

[Unbeliever]

In article <RevRey-2011...@ip193.louisville.ky.interramp.com>,
Laura Rey <Rev...@aol.com> wrote:

>The Unbe wrote:
>
><And frankly, I'm scared of heaven--at least of the usual depiction of
><it. I would go stark raving bonkers in a week if all I had to do was to
><sit around on a grassy knoll singing hymns.

"Just for the record, the Unbe didn't wrote that." :)

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

Unbeliever wrote:
>
> In article <329401...@primenet.com>,
> Lissa & Eric McCollum <eri...@primenet.com> wrote:

8<snippage as needed>8

> The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
> if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
> long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
> superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
> stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
> deserves no credit for the act."

a) I will concede to tha accusation that the church buried or "lost"
information that was incompatible with its beliefs. BUT--note that
Plato *was* kept alive, because Neo-platonism was considered to be
consistent with Christianity until Thomas Aquinas dragged in Aristotle
(who, I'm sure, was kicking and screaming the entire time), proving that
Aristotle was not incompatible with Christianity.

b) The church *did* value education. It's just that *reading* wasn't
valued as important for the masses. (double meaning intended) Judaism
has always valued learning; unfortuantely, Christianity did not adopt
that virtue, thaks to too literal an interpretation of Paul's "wisdom of
this world is foolishness" argument. Since reading was not encouraged,
the church sponsored didactic art instead. (Still does.)

c) The cause of the "new" knowledge was the literature that the
Crusaders brought back with them. Fotunately, the Muslims kept copies
of the works of Aristotle and others. It was these works that were the
foundation of the Reinassance, literally "rebirth". (Also explains why
so many stars have Arabic names . . .)

> "One. Religion must take the lumps, if it's going to claim the credit."
>
> "Two. Economics explains almost every event in the history of the world, if
> you look long and hard enough."
>
> "Three. How do you ``disguise something as religion''? Either the
> religious group in question claimed responsibility for the deeds, or it
> didn't."

Case in point--indulgences.

Indugences were a fundraising effort to fill the Pope's coffers. The
papacy disguised this idiot tax as religion and sold it to the masses.
However, contemporary sources saw through the scandal, as we can see
from the songs of Walther von der Vogelweide. Two examples are at:
http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr/library.htm

> "The Crusades were totally, thoroughly Christian. As was the
> Spanish Inquisition. As were the Salem Witch Trials. Christianity was
> responsible for the ``Dark'' of the Dark Ages. It is the greatest irony
> of our world that a religion that claims so much enlightenment and
> tolerance, whose founder theoretically taught his followers to love thy
> neighbor and turn the other cheek, has historically been a leading source of
> violence, hatred, bigotry and bloodshed in the world.

While I will stipulate that these offenses were committed by those who
called themselves Christian, often with the blessing of the heirarchy,
it does not mean that the incidents of which you speak were Christian in
nature.

To be honest, I think the things you are so angry about are the same
things that Christians call sin and evil--even if they don't always
recognize the face of evil when it gazes at them in the mirror. It's
not that Christianity hasn't changed--it's that human beings haven't
changed.

> >"I guess I just have a problem to broad brushes, without knowing exactly
> >what you mean to be painting. Could you explain?"
>

> "It's hard to deal with religion EXCEPT with broad brushes. .
.

.
> "You know, *MOST* of my point in all this is simply definitional. The
> realm of science in the provable. The realm of religion (and
> superstition; same thing as far as I'm concerned) is the unprovable.
> Obviously. If any religion could PROVE itself, it would become
> science."

Which is perhaps why you feel you can only deal with religion with broad
brushes? I.e., since religion is unprovable "by definition", then
there's no sense in dealing with anything less than generalities--if one
bothers to spend any time at all on it?

> "Now, maybe I've just got Occam's Razor too firmly imbedded in my
> skull, but I've never been able to make myself accept an unnecessary
> hypothesis. The presence or absence of God makes no DIFFERENCE; no
> provable event in the history of the world has ever REQUIRED a God to be
> explainable.

I submit that this reduces, in most cases, to a tautology, i.e. provable
event = explainable event.

For example: Wegner and continental drift. He couldn't explain a
mechanism, therefore the existence of "Pangea" was not provable. When
seafloor spreading was discovered, continental drift could be explained,
and therefore was provable and proven.

As long as you get to define what is provable by what is explainable,
you're sliding down the sharp side of Occam's razor.

Because astronomers had digested the idea that heaven was perfect
because God was perfect and that circles were perfect becase they
weren't deformed, like ellipses, they continued to draw epicycles to
explain the motion of the planets. Even Copernicus's heliocentric model
used epicycles, albeit fewere than the geocentric model. (Which is why,
BTW, Copernicus didn't run into the trouble that Gallileo did.) It took
Kepler's analysis of Tycho Brahe's observations to "discover" that
planetary orbits are elliptical, with varying degrees of eccentricity.

The point of which is to say that it wasn't Christianity that caused the
delay in discovering this, but wrongheaded notions about perfection
which HAVE NO BASIS IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. But the broad
brushstrokes you're using would obscure that with the notion that the
church suppressed the knowledge.

Truth is, you have to ask the right questions to find the truth.

We all have blinders. I think it's unproductive to rant about the
shortcomings of our ancestors because they wore Christian-colored
blinders.

> Unbe, who looks like he's not at all sure that he made the point he
> intended to, sits down and shuts up... for now...

You look thirsty. May I buy your next drink?

[Laura Rey]

P. Kight wrote:
> "Now, I can see that this Place might represent a vacation for you from
> the *responsibilities* of your work ... but if, as you say, theology and
> people are what you're *about*, then how could we object if you express
> those things?

"Yes, it is a vacation for me. It is one of the few places where I get
to be mostly me. But my passion also happens to be an area of a great
deal of pain and anger for some, and I have no desire to get into
long, heated discussions about religion in this forum... So I tread
lightly."

"That's what I love about this place. Its my play place." She flicks
hot tub water at Jezebel. "I mean where else could I sit in such a huge
hot tub and flirt with so many folks? Let alone dodge a snorkling tigger."

> "If an itinerant 'Net preacher were to wander in here, stand up on a
> table and begin haranguing us, some of us might get a little cranky
> (more of us would probably start weaving stories and jokes around the
> occasion). But *lots* of folx bring their personal theologies (or lack
> thereof) into conversations here, and that's fine! Um -- I'm not saying
> you wouldn't be *challenged* on those theories, but if you're up to
> defending your beliefs, then go for it!"

"I'n always open for good conversation and welcome questions, personal or
otherwise, but in general I prefer for others to come to me if they have
religious/theological questions. That way, people don't feel that
another one of those obnoxious preachers is beating them over the head
with nonsensical (sp?) crap. Also, it shows to me that they have a real
interest in a topic and are exploring something within their soul."

Laura swims over to Jezebel (my this tub is big...) and offers a hug.
"Thanks for your support and *I* don't find you opinionated....I find
you fun!"

Laura
--
Also known as the Reverend Laura Rey, and *that lady preacher....*

My newsfeed is being really flakey so please cc: me at my email address
if you want to make sure I get it. Thanks.

[Bruce E Golightly]

Excerpts from netnews.alt.callahans: 22-Nov-96 Re: RELIGION: Revisited
(Long) by Unbel...@ucs.orst.edu

> The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
> if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
> long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
> superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
> stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
> deserves no credit for the act."

I think I'll have to toss a comment into this one. I recently finished a
book with the title "How the Irish Saved Civilzation" by Cahill. One of
the things he points out is that the church in Ireland was the
repository of a considerable amount of information. This is, according
to Cahill, a direct result of the Celtic tradition rather than anything
having to do with The Church.

If his "facts" are straight, we probably have the Celtic/Irish version
of the Catholic Church to thank for quite a few things. he specifically
mentions a number of works by ancient Greek and Roman writers that were
completely unknown by folks on the continent during the "dark ages".

Unfortunately, the Celtic branch of the church lost several (political)
power struggles with Rome later. They were so thoroughly quashed by Rome
that they were unable to offer any real, strong resistance when the pope
"gave" Ireland to the king of England some time later. (I've forgotten
which king that was. somewhere around 1150, IIRC, though.)

Information held by the Celtic church was protected from destruction,
not from dissemination. You need to point the finger a little more
precisely when talking about burying information.

(As an aside, I do not have much regard for the church of Rome. and I
phrase it that way _very_ deliberately.)

Anam, who is _not_ a Cathilic, but _is_ Irish.

[Reed Byers]

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Anne Gwin wrote:

> > The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
> > if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
> > long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
> > superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
> > stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
> > deserves no credit for the act."

> Galileo's problems occurred during the Italian Renaissance, I

> think, or as near as dammit, when the Church was _losing_ its hold.

The Unbeliever can be heard muttering, "...which is probably the only
reason he got away with his ``heresy'' as long as he did."

> I'm not arguing about the Church's decadence, Unbe, just that you're imputing

> to the whole of Western Europe a particular mindset, a monolithic state of
> things, that just wasn't there.

"I do not, CANNOT make any claims for the whole of Western Europe, of ANY
time period. I don't have the raw knowledge. And I know that ANY
sweeping generalization is bound to be wrought with exception and
counter-exception. So to the extent that I am overreaching my bounds, I
humbly apologize."

"I *DO* know, however, that this was a period of time in which the
Church radically expanded its powerbase and did so on the backs of
the poor and the ignorant. One way in which it did this was by
intentionally KEEPING them ignorant, and dependent. Filled with
superstitious fear of the horrors that awaited anyone who defied the
Church, or even just politely disagreed with them. And then, when God
didn't smite the sinners quick enough, the Christians took matters into
their own hands. (Christians have always been most creative in finding
ways to hurt, main, or kill someone who disagrees with their enlightened
philosophies). By ``correctly'' interpreting the Bible, you can prove
anything you want -- and the Church made full use of that fact to excuse
any number of gross behaviors that they'd just as soon we didn't remind
them of, today."

Unbe pauses to take a breath.

"I know that the advances of the Renaissance came when the power of
the church was DIMINISHED, not when it was in it's full glory.
Coincidence? Methinks not."

> "In fact I have a whole set of counterexamples, but this soapbox is kinda
> shaky. This is one of my buttons, I'm afraid.

"I've never claimed that Christians have done no good. I've merely
claimed that in my opinion, the bad outweighs the good. Rather like my
opinion of StM, come to think of it, and you know how far I got with any
negative statements concerning HIM..."

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-

EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

Amused by the thought of comparing Christians to Speaker;
he'd have never let me hear the end of that one...

[Unbeliever]

In article <570qpe$7...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,

Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Shonias is intrigued by this list of points, and always one to fill
>in the quiz...
>
>In article <56tq7r$s...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
>> protecting mankind.
>
>Sort of... but not exactly, and not so much protect as... be a part of
>or something.

Unbe smiles. "Protect."

He gets out a little notepad and writes down "1) Yes."

>>2) There is no such thing, really, as death.
>
>Again sort of, wwell actually, yes.

"Thank you. 2) Yes."

>>3) There is some purpose to the universe.
>
>Apart from to exist? No.
>What other purpose do you need? :)

"Your religion doesn't involve an afterlife? Doesn't imply that the
universe is God's Special Creation, or that there are any punishments or
rewards for Earthly behavior hereafter? If any of this is true, then
there IS a purpose to your universe."

"3) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
>> for nothing.
>
>No, definitely not.

"No prayer? Praying is merely a way for an individual to try and effect
things he otherwise couldn't, and it costs nothing. No Old Testament?
Moses had quite a few tricks up his sleeve as I recall..."

"4) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>5) You are better than the next fellow.
>
>No.

"You're not going to heaven? You're not specially ``saved''? You aren't
one of the Chosen People, the ones God hand-picked as his special ones?"

"5) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.
>
>No.

"No devils, demons, witches, evil spirits? No heathens to point to?
Scapegoats to blame?"

"6) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>"I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many of these is
>>addressed by his or her PARTICULAR religion, and to decide how much he or
>>she can REALLY trust in a religion that is so... well crafted... as to
>>answer so many of Mankind's psychological needs so well..."
>
>That was fun, apparently my religion was invented to fend off fears of
>death but not much else, fair enough, I find it useful and I don't
>think it does any "good" or "evil" really, it's too.... individual
>or something. Hmmmm, where does that leave it?

"If my assumptions about your religion are true (which they may very
easily not be; every religion's got its own take on things), then I'm
counting 6 out of 6. If not, then I humbly beg your forgiveness for
my rudeness in assuming something untrue about your belief system."

>Can I buy you one of my special calorie free drinks? All the yummy
>fatty stuff, but not an absorbed calorie in sight! :)

"Don'tcha love virtual drinks?"

>Shonias
>(who is used to people laughing at her religion and calling it crap)

"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"

[him.]

In article <5730hb$j...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <329401...@primenet.com>,
>Lissa & Eric McCollum <eri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>give a better idea of the cause of the Dark Ages, but I thought that
>>the church was actually one of the institutions that kept knowledge
>>alive during that time period? I guess I'm not sure what you mean
>>here."

"I was under the impression that the dark ages were caused by a bunch of
germans who thought it would be a good idea to trash the roman empire."

>The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
>if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
>long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting ignorance and
>superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
>stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
>deserves no credit for the act."

Al ponders this. "Unbe, are you familiar with the Greek Dark Ages?
Y'see, shortly after the Seven Against Thebes a buncha barbarians came
trucking in (sound familiar?) and kicked over everybody's sand castles.
(some wandering refugees would eventually become the philistines) Then
they moved into their homes. The problem was, the barbarians had
neglected to save all the learning the early greeks had picked up (like,
say, how to write) so when the later greeks were trying to bootstrap
themselves back up into civilisation, they had to borrow learning from the
medes and persians.

"Now, in the Western Dark Ages, there was a Chruch which managed to scarf
up all the books AND maintain the knowledge of how to read them, so when
they invented Humanists in the renissance, they could read the old
philosophers and get a head start to where we are now."

>violence, hatred, bigotry and bloodshed in the world. You have but to
>watch Jerry Falwell preach hatred of homosexuals, or witness the
>Christian Coalition's unashamed gall in trying to usurp the Republican
>party (and through it, the U.S. Government itself), to know that to this
>day, Christianity has not changed its fundamental nature."

"I suppose you would rather return to the days of worshipping Mars and
holding blood sacrifices?"

>"You know, *MOST* of my point in all this is simply definitional. The
>realm of science in the provable. The realm of religion (and
>superstition; same thing as far as I'm concerned) is the unprovable.
>Obviously. If any religion could PROVE itself, it would become
>science."

"Would it?" Al says. "You seem to have a very narrow idea of what
Religion IS, Unbe. And a very religious idea of what science is, too."

>"Now, maybe I've just got Occam's Razor too firmly imbedded in my
>skull, but I've never been able to make myself accept an unnecessary
>hypothesis.

"You have occams razor too firmly imbedded in your skull. Just because
you don't need a hypothesis just now doesn't mean it isn't true. Doesn't
mean it IS true either, but that's no reason to close your mind to the
possibility that it might be."

"Here's your quiz for the week: What is the Fundamental (indeed, only)
question of Statistics?"

Big Al. This always irked me...

[grammarfascist]

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Laura Rey wrote:

> Sigh....nit pick...nit pick... :) I'm surprised Rose hasn't said
> anything yet!

I wish I knew where I'd gotten this nitpicking reputation from. My
nickname does _not_ mean that I nudge people about every little thing. It
means that if I am asked, or if I know that the person who made an error
would like to know about it, then I send _email_. I've been wiping the
NITPICK: Punctuation thread because it really has nothing to do with me; I
stopped reading and posting to alt.usage.english because I disliked the
let-me-tell-you-how-wrong-you-are attitude there.
*sigh* And I know this is offtopic, but I've been wiping this thread too,
so... so whatever. It's 3:30 and I should probably take my last antibiotic
of the day and go to bed.
Sorry about the rant, folks.

--Rose

ROSEv1.2b * Projected release date: May 2000 * Email for details

[Unbeliever]

In article <3295DE...@ptdprolog.net>,

Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. <kkne...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:

>a) I will concede to tha accusation that the church buried or "lost"
>information that was incompatible with its beliefs. BUT--note that
>Plato *was* kept alive, because Neo-platonism was considered to be
>consistent with Christianity until Thomas Aquinas dragged in Aristotle
>(who, I'm sure, was kicking and screaming the entire time), proving that
>Aristotle was not incompatible with Christianity.

Unbe smiles.

"Recording only those facts you agree with, and ignoring the ones you
don't, is not science, and not ``keeping knowledge alive''. It's just
propaganda. Pure and simple."

>b) The church *did* value education. It's just that *reading* wasn't
>valued as important for the masses. (double meaning intended) Judaism
>has always valued learning; unfortuantely, Christianity did not adopt
>that virtue, thaks to too literal an interpretation of Paul's "wisdom of
>this world is foolishness" argument.

"The SYNAGOGUE may very well have valued learning; as you state so well,
though, the CHURCH did not. My case against the synagogues is much less
strenous; the Jews committed far fewer atrocities. Whether this was by
accident (i.e. they never got the chance) or design (i.e. they were more
moral people), I won't try to argue."

>Since reading was not encouraged,
>the church sponsored didactic art instead. (Still does.)

"Art is not knowledge. Learning only one highly filtered version of
reality is not knowledge."

>c) The cause of the "new" knowledge was the literature that the
>Crusaders brought back with them. Fotunately, the Muslims kept copies
>of the works of Aristotle and others. It was these works that were the
>foundation of the Reinassance, literally "rebirth". (Also explains why
>so many stars have Arabic names . . .)

"Rebirth from... religious persecution, perhaps?"

>Case in point--indulgences.
>
>Indugences were a fundraising effort to fill the Pope's coffers. The
>papacy disguised this idiot tax as religion and sold it to the masses.

"Ummmm, not to put TOO fine a point on it, but if the Pope says that
Indulgences are part of religion, then they *ARE*. You don't get to pick
your own definition of Christianity."

>However, contemporary sources saw through the scandal, as we can see
>from the songs of Walther von der Vogelweide. Two examples are at:
> http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr/library.htm

Unbe looks confused. "Saw through the scandal?!? This is the bloody
Pope we're talking about! You're saying the Pope isn't the absolute last
word to at least half the Christians on the planet? The Pope says the
moon is made of bleu cheese, the Christians start making dressing!"

"You can claim that something is not compatible with YOUR interpretation of
the Bible, and is therefore ``unchristian''. However, to those of us on
the outside, all interpretations are equally (in)valid. We don't have the
luxury of being able to assume that YOUR idea of Christianity is right.
Falwell's idea of Christianity involves bashing gays. The Christian
Coalition's idea of Christianity involves teaching creationism as fact in
science classrooms. What makes YOUR ideas of Christianity more valid than
theirs? The Bible? They use the same one you do, and THEY interpret it
DIFFERENTLY."

>> "The Crusades were totally, thoroughly Christian. As was the
>> Spanish Inquisition. As were the Salem Witch Trials. Christianity was
>> responsible for the ``Dark'' of the Dark Ages. It is the greatest irony
>> of our world that a religion that claims so much enlightenment and
>> tolerance, whose founder theoretically taught his followers to love thy
>> neighbor and turn the other cheek, has historically been a leading source of
>> violence, hatred, bigotry and bloodshed in the world.
>
>While I will stipulate that these offenses were committed by those who
>called themselves Christian, often with the blessing of the heirarchy,
>it does not mean that the incidents of which you speak were Christian in
>nature.

"I understand what you're saying, and have heard it before. HOWEVER, if
a group that size calls itself Christian, who am I to tell them they're
not? Furthermore, if huge numbers of people calling themselves Christian
have committed atrocity after atrocity throughout the past two millenia,
who am I to say that they weren't REALLY Christian, and only these nice,
quiet types in the corner are the ``true Christians''?"

"You see, this has always been my dilemma. I *KNOW* there are many, many
people who call themselves Christian, who interpret the Bible non-literally,
who accept the lessons attributed to Christ in the same positive way that
I think they SHOULD be understood, and in general are really wonderful
people. *BUT!* There are also many, many people who call themselves
Christian, who are the worst kind of hypocritical, ignorant scum
imaginable. HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH? Either Christianity takes ALL the
lumps and credit done in its name, or none of it. I *REFUSE* to play the
game where we call ``good people'' Christian and ``bad people'' something
else. If we get to pick and choose like that, then of COURSE
Christianity looks good! If I could pick and choose which people to
apply the term ``Nazi'' to, I bet I could give THEIR image quite a
spit-shine, as well!"

>To be honest, I think the things you are so angry about are the same
>things that Christians call sin and evil--even if they don't always
>recognize the face of evil when it gazes at them in the mirror. It's
>not that Christianity hasn't changed--it's that human beings haven't
>changed.

"Very true. I agree that in general, Christians proclaim their revulsion
of acts such as those I've attributed to them. But when these same acts
are repeated, over and over, in the very NAME of Christianity, I can't
help but blame Christianity for it."

>Which is perhaps why you feel you can only deal with religion with broad
>brushes? I.e., since religion is unprovable "by definition", then
>there's no sense in dealing with anything less than generalities--if one
>bothers to spend any time at all on it?

"The job of the scientist is to keep an open mind. I will listen to the
claims of any religionist that comes my way, and if they attempt to
converse rationally, I will grant them the same courtesy. And if they
can provide real, unfaked scientific proof, that can be verified by
experts in the field, I will congratulate them and adjust my beliefs
accordingly. *BUT*, the moment a religion becomes proven fact, it is no
longer religion. It becomes the purview of science."

"Science is like the Borg; what it cannot defeat, it assimilates. The
burden of proof, however, is always on the positive. It's not up to
science to prove that invisible massless purple unicorns DON'T exist,
it's up to you to prove they do. So far, for all their blustery claims,
religion has never bothered to learn scientific method suffiently to
prove itself. And thus does it remain no more than superstition in my eyes."

>> "Now, maybe I've just got Occam's Razor too firmly imbedded in my
>> skull, but I've never been able to make myself accept an unnecessary
>> hypothesis. The presence or absence of God makes no DIFFERENCE; no
>> provable event in the history of the world has ever REQUIRED a God to be
>> explainable.
>
>I submit that this reduces, in most cases, to a tautology, i.e. provable
>event = explainable event.

"In most cases... maybe. But it IS possible to prove something that
can't be explained. A library of scrolls could be discovered tomorrow,
carbon-dated to 500 BC, that *CLEARLY* predict events of the future. (As
opposed to the so-called prophecies that many Christians cling to, that
are either so vague they could mean anything, so obvious that the act of
prediction is no great feat, or so wrong they can't be considered
prophecy.)"

"It's true that extreme claims require extreme evidence. I won't be
convinced of a global Flood just because two different cultures on
different parts of the globe have ``Flood myths''. It's MUCH more
reasonable to assume that at one point, both cultures had a very bad
flood occur that perhaps SEEMED like the end of the world, and then the
story got expanded in later retelling. Humans exaggerate. Global floods
do not occur."

>For example: Wegner and continental drift. He couldn't explain a
>mechanism, therefore the existence of "Pangea" was not provable. When
>seafloor spreading was discovered, continental drift could be explained,
>and therefore was provable and proven.
>
>As long as you get to define what is provable by what is explainable,
>you're sliding down the sharp side of Occam's razor.

"I do not believe that I am doing this. As I said, something CAN be
proven without being explained. However, it is very difficult, and
intentionally so. You would not be happy with a scientific method that
EASILY accepted unexplainable things as fact, without compelling
evidence. In the case of Pangea, it was my understanding that it
remained under consideration, because it explained so much, even before
continental drift was discovered. However, it *WAS* the explanation
that advanced it from a clever possibility to a near certainty."

>The point of which is to say that it wasn't Christianity that caused the
>delay in discovering this, but wrongheaded notions about perfection
>which HAVE NO BASIS IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.

"So *YOU* say. *THEY* thought they *DID* have basis in Christian
Scriptures! With all the same ``sureness'' with which you say they were
wrong, they had the same ``sureness'' that they were right!"

"You understand, it doesn't MATTER who's ``right'' in interpreting the
Bible. What MATTERS is that since Christians are convinced that whatever
they believe THIS year is ``The Truth According To God'', they have
historically felt they had the right to beat any OTHER ideas into
submission. And it continues to this day; since the fundamentalists
cannot beat evolution INTELLECTUALLY, they'll try and beat it by banning
it and requiring that creationism be taught as an equally valid theory.
Nothing changes..."

>But the broad
>brushstrokes you're using would obscure that with the notion that the
>church suppressed the knowledge.

"I realize that I'm generalizing to SOME extent; don't make the mistake,
however, of assuming I'm generalizing beyond reason."

>Truth is, you have to ask the right questions to find the truth.

"...and Christians have historically been the ones killing and maining
anyone who asked the questions we *NOW* know to be right."

>We all have blinders. I think it's unproductive to rant about the
>shortcomings of our ancestors because they wore Christian-colored
>blinders.

"Unproductive? HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF! By showing people what
Christians WERE, we are showing them what they ARE, and WILL BE AGAIN.
Have you ever read or watched ``The Handmaid's Tale''? THAT is what I'm
afraid of."

"For all the ``good'' Christians out there (I'm actually told the
non-fundamentalists are the large majority), not ONE has entered the
public eye and denounced the Christian Coalition. Not ONE has stood up
to the Falwells and Robertsons of the world. We humanists are alone in
the trenches against the forces of censorship and ignorance that are the
Dark Side of Christianity. Don't tell me that these people aren't
Christians; THEY say they are and THEY are the ones with the political
power. Tell THEM, to their FACE, and then run away. I hear they have a
thing for crucifixions..."

>You look thirsty. May I buy your next drink?

"Always, friend. I'll have an eggnog. I hope none of this has been
interpreted personally. I know of many fine Christians in the world, and
it disturbs them as well when I go off like this. But I truly believe
that religion is inherently a curse; it is leftover from a time before
Man had the tools to be ABLE to accurately explain the world around him.
A volcano erupting was a sign from God. A lightning bolt was a sign from
God. Man has ALWAYS been afraid of death, has ALWAYS wanted to believe
that since life is so unfair HERE, that sometime LATER, things would be
equalized. How natural to tell stories, first as a way of comforting the
young, then later as a pitiful attempt to explain what to them was so
frightening and magical? Later religions evolved from earlier ones (and
if you don't think all the elements of Christianity existed long before
Christ theoretically showed up, then you've got another think coming),
and even to this day, the primitive side of ourselves wants and needs the
comfort that religion provides. What does science have to offer in it's
place? Cold, hard, reality. No wonder so many people prefer the fantasy
of religion!"

"Next drink's..., ummm..., I'll buy the the next round."

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

Unbeliever wrote:
>
> In article <3295DE...@ptdprolog.net>,
> Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. <kkne...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:

8<some snippage of contents may have ocurred during shipment>8

> Unbe smiles.
>
> "Recording only those facts you agree with, and ignoring the ones you
> don't, is not science, and not ``keeping knowledge alive''. It's just
> propaganda. Pure and simple."

"Sort of like the aristocrat who received Mendel's paper on the
inheritance of traits in peas and ignored it????"

Barthel smiles back.

More below.

> "The SYNAGOGUE may very well have valued learning; as you state so well,
> though, the CHURCH did not. My case against the synagogues is much less
> strenous; the Jews committed far fewer atrocities. Whether this was by
> accident (i.e. they never got the chance) or design (i.e. they were more
> moral people), I won't try to argue."

"The question is whether or not the church was *supposed* to be
responsible for maintaining all the knowledge of the past.

"In anticipation of your response, I will admit that once the church
assumed political authority, yes, they probably were. Set themselves up
for it.

"However, I should at least point out the the church moved into a power
vacuum left when civl authority in Rome was disrupted by the various
sacks of Rome.

"'Papal' authority escalated when Gregory, who was bishop of Rome at the
time, exerted sufficient leadership (both with the Romans and the
invaders) to avoid further destruction.

"In other words, out of compassion, the church stepped in when secular
authority could not do the job. Visions of world domination came
later. <grin> Political authority was an unfortunate side effect and
detour.

"Gee, maybe if Gregory had only let the hordes destroy Rome. Then there
would have been nothing for the church *to* preserve. And we wouldn't
be having this discussion. <grin>"

> >Since reading was not encouraged,
> >the church sponsored didactic art instead. (Still does.)
>
> "Art is not knowledge. Learning only one highly filtered version of
> reality is not knowledge."

"Rephrase that to "complete knowledge" and I'd agree with you. But I
can't simply dismiss it as being of no value whatsoever. Unbalanced,
incomplete--absolutely. But not knowledge? That I can't agree with.

"Besides, Roman culture was not literary--it was primarily oral. When
the church became legal and was flooded with prosepective converts
(hoping to gain political favor by sharing the same religion with the
Emperor), they incorporated a culture which did not read and did not
value literacy. Hence the extensive use of non-literary educational
aids."

> >c) The cause of the "new" knowledge was the literature that the
> >Crusaders brought back with them. Fotunately, the Muslims kept copies
> >of the works of Aristotle and others. It was these works that were the
> >foundation of the Reinassance, literally "rebirth". (Also explains why
> >so many stars have Arabic names . . .)
>
> "Rebirth from... religious persecution, perhaps?"

"But what if there weren't any texts to preserve. If (mind you, this is
mere conjecture on my part--I'd have to go and do some research to see
if anyone else even asked the question) the only books in the churches
were bibles, Plato, and church documents, which should be a reasonable
assumption (your home library contains what interests and is important
to you, no?), then perhaps the other texts were not available for the
church *to* preserve. That is, the "barbarian" invaders destroyed the
other works, and the church was only concerned at that time with
preserving its own library. Why didn't the secular authorities take
care to preserve what they could? Perhaps survival was more important
than books? Especially in a society that MEMORIZED such works . . ."

> >Case in point--indulgences.
> >
> >Indugences were a fundraising effort to fill the Pope's coffers. The
> >papacy disguised this idiot tax as religion and sold it to the masses.
>
> "Ummmm, not to put TOO fine a point on it, but if the Pope says that
> Indulgences are part of religion, then they *ARE*. You don't get to pick
> your own definition of Christianity."

"Why not?

"Luther did. Zwingli did. Calvin did. The Pope did. You have.

"You are clearly defining Christianity by whatever is labelled as
Christianity, no matter who applies the label, without regard to any
other characteristic.

"As I recall, there are quite a few feminists who are miffed, maybe
angry or even outraged, at how the label of "feminism" has become
applied to a militant form of persecution and propaganda that bears
little resemblance to what they know as feminism.

"Sort of like the children's riddle about how many legs a lamb has if
you call a tail a leg. The answer is still 4, because calling a tail a
leg doesn't make it one."

> >However, contemporary sources saw through the scandal, as we can see
> >from the songs of Walther von der Vogelweide. Two examples are at:
> > http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr/library.htm
>
> Unbe looks confused. "Saw through the scandal?!? This is the bloody
> Pope we're talking about! You're saying the Pope isn't the absolute last
> word to at least half the Christians on the planet? The Pope says the
> moon is made of bleu cheese, the Christians start making dressing!"

"Get your facts straight. Papal infallibility (specifically, when
speaking ex cathedra) was first declared by Vatican I in 1869-70. Thus,
for the first 300 or so years of the church, there was NO pope.
(Despite Catholic arguments for the primacy of Rome, else why would
Constantine have called all of the biships to the Council of Nicea in
325 to settle the Arian controversy? Could have just told the Pope to
make a pronouncement.) For the next 1500 years or so, there was no
official pronouncement of Papal infallibility, and, in point of fact,
ecumenical councils were considered to have a greater authority than the
Pope.

"Furthermore, canon law is based on the old Roman law which states what
each person should strive to achieve. English law, the basis of our
American jurisprudence, state what each person MUST perform. Any wonder
why American Christians get more bent out of shape at papal
prounouncements?

"So, yes, I *AM* saying that the Pope isn't the absolute last word."

> "You can claim that something is not compatible with YOUR interpretation of
> the Bible, and is therefore ``unchristian''. However, to those of us on
> the outside, all interpretations are equally (in)valid. We don't have the
> luxury of being able to assume that YOUR idea of Christianity is right.

"BINGO! Give the man a kewpie doll!" Barthel grins.

"You just said it yourself--because you consider it all equally
(in)valid, you're not going to differentiate.

"For me, Islam is not a valid expression of my faith. And while my
ignorance of the details of Muslim faith and practice lead me to make
erroneous generalizations, I cannot ignore the fact that there are at
least two subsets of Islam, the Sunni and the Sufi. As much as
possible, I must be accurate in my differentiation.

"As far as I'm concerned, generalizing when I know that differences
exist leads me down the slippery slope of intellectual dishonesty."

> Falwell's idea of Christianity involves bashing gays. The Christian
> Coalition's idea of Christianity involves teaching creationism as fact in
> science classrooms. What makes YOUR ideas of Christianity more valid than
> theirs? The Bible? They use the same one you do, and THEY interpret it
> DIFFERENTLY."

"Prior to Gutenberg and Luther, Biblical literalism wasn't even an
issue. There simply weren't enough copies to go around. Unfortunately,
most local priests were also illiterate. One of Luther's shocks was the
extreme variance between what was being taught in the churches and what
was originally taught by Paul.

"Leaving aside the issues of corruption and poor management of priests
for now, the issue was that centuries of oral teaching and assimilation
of local cultures and values without reference to the scriptures had
caused a deviation in Christianity. (The same did *not* occur in
Judaism because of the high literacy rate and emphasis on every
community having at least one copy of the Torah.)

"Unfortunately, after centuries of illiteracy, and under the influence
of the Reformation which condemned large portions of church tradition
and teaching, many folk took the Bible and ran with it--and it alone.

"Now, their only source of faith is the Bible alone. They have become
convinced that if any one verse of the Bible is not literal, then the
whole thing is a sham. They have no depth of faith.

"While it may mean nothing to you, I was ordained and authorized to
preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. I am called to
shepherd the sheep.

"In other words, 'It' my yob, man!'"

> >While I will stipulate that these offenses were committed by those who
> >called themselves Christian, often with the blessing of the heirarchy,
> >it does not mean that the incidents of which you speak were Christian in
> >nature.
>
> "I understand what you're saying, and have heard it before. HOWEVER, if
> a group that size calls itself Christian, who am I to tell them they're
> not? Furthermore, if huge numbers of people calling themselves Christian
> have committed atrocity after atrocity throughout the past two millenia,
> who am I to say that they weren't REALLY Christian, and only these nice,
> quiet types in the corner are the ``true Christians''?"

"By their fruits.

"Sorry, couldn't avoid the scriptural reference, but it's true. And
you've almost said as much when you point out the vast distinction
between what Christianity aspires to and the atrocities committed in its
name.

"I think you're well within your right to say that you don't think
certain actions are Christian in character.

"But you're going the other way around and condemning all Christians for
the acts of the worst.

"I guess you do think one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Or at least
it's not worth the effort to go picking through the barrel."

> "You see, this has always been my dilemma. I *KNOW* there are many, many
> people who call themselves Christian, who interpret the Bible non-literally,
> who accept the lessons attributed to Christ in the same positive way that
> I think they SHOULD be understood, and in general are really wonderful
> people. *BUT!* There are also many, many people who call themselves
> Christian, who are the worst kind of hypocritical, ignorant scum
> imaginable. HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH? Either Christianity takes ALL the
> lumps and credit done in its name, or none of it. I *REFUSE* to play the
> game where we call ``good people'' Christian and ``bad people'' something
> else.

"Sorry, I must have been unclear.

"I wasn't trying to absolve Christianity of its guilt in the crimes
perpetrated in its name.

"I was attempting to defend Christianity from blanket condemnation and
correct a few factual errors.

> If we get to pick and choose like that, then of COURSE
> Christianity looks good!

"I think it still looks good. Very tarnished and abused, but in its
essence, good."

> If I could pick and choose which people to
> apply the term ``Nazi'' to, I bet I could give THEIR image quite a
> spit-shine, as well!"

"Can we avoid invoking the 'Hitler rule'?" Barthel grins.

"But let's talk about what he did accomplish: revitalized the economy,
rebuilt the infrastructure, took the military strength from the least to
the greatest single power in the world, gave the nation hope, and left
the legacy of the Volkswagen.

"Just one TEENSY WEENSY MINOR drawback. He scapegoated the Jews (and
other "outsiders") and spearheaded the most successful attempt at
genocide in the modern world. But he didn't stop at simple
genocide--humiliation and mutilation were included, free of charge.

"But--the Nazis WERE very spit and polish!"

<close captioned for the sarcasm impaired>

> >To be honest, I think the things you are so angry about are the same
> >things that Christians call sin and evil--even if they don't always
> >recognize the face of evil when it gazes at them in the mirror. It's
> >not that Christianity hasn't changed--it's that human beings haven't
> >changed.
>
> "Very true. I agree that in general, Christians proclaim their revulsion
> of acts such as those I've attributed to them. But when these same acts
> are repeated, over and over, in the very NAME of Christianity, I can't
> help but blame Christianity for it."

"And there's the difference between us. I blame the human beings who
perpetrated it. Personal responsibility and all that.

"But, I must also blame the church. Not in its fundamental vision, but
in how it's living that vision. The church as a corporate body must
also take a degree of responsibility for the actions of its members.
Reformed and reforming, and all that."

> "The job of the scientist is to keep an open mind.

"But what about the scientists who DON'T? Does that condemn the
scientist or science in general?"

> I will listen to the
> claims of any religionist that comes my way, and if they attempt to
> converse rationally, I will grant them the same courtesy. And if they
> can provide real, unfaked scientific proof, that can be verified by
> experts in the field, I will congratulate them and adjust my beliefs
> accordingly. *BUT*, the moment a religion becomes proven fact, it is no
> longer religion. It becomes the purview of science."

"I appreciate your very ethical position.

"However, inasmuch as religion does not deal with objective reality, but
the subjective (and immeasurable) experience of objective reality, it
cannot be proven by scientific method and cannot become science.

"Although I maintain that there exists a set of objective events which
can be proven by science, even if religious faith puts a different
"spin" on them. E.g., the existence of the temple in Jerusalem."

> "Science is like the Borg; what it cannot defeat, it assimilates. The
> burden of proof, however, is always on the positive. It's not up to
> science to prove that invisible massless purple unicorns DON'T exist,
> it's up to you to prove they do.

"Absolutely! One cannot prove a negative. One can only state that no
case has yet been found.

"Just as we cannot prove that all UFOs are NOT flying saucers.

"For the record, I believe that UFOs are exactly that: Unidentified
Flying Objects. Unfortunately, the term 'UFO' has been co-opted to mean
'flying saucer with alien abductors aboard'.

"Hmm--just what I was saying about the term 'christian' being co-opted."

Barthel smiles.

> So far, for all their blustery claims,
> religion has never bothered to learn scientific method suffiently to
> prove itself. And thus does it remain no more than superstition in my eyes."

"And I assert that it never will be able to prove it self, for the
reasons mentioned above.

"You're welcome to view it as superstition if you find it so
appropriate. But I think 'superstition' is a loaded term, semantically,
that colors your perceptions and rhetoric.

> >I submit that this reduces, in most cases, to a tautology, i.e. provable
> >event = explainable event.
>
> "In most cases... maybe. But it IS possible to prove something that
> can't be explained.

"But not likely.

"The blinder of science is that it (or rather the humans who practice
it) is uncomfortable with unexplained observations. They tend to be
explained away as observational or experimental error until the
theoretical viewpoint can be altered to accept the new data.

"In the case of some individual scientists, the theoretical viewpoint
cannot be altered. (Although Alan migh lable this under the 'cognitive
illusion' umbrella."

> "It's true that extreme claims require extreme evidence. I won't be
> convinced of a global Flood just because two different cultures on
> different parts of the globe have ``Flood myths''. It's MUCH more
> reasonable to assume that at one point, both cultures had a very bad
> flood occur that perhaps SEEMED like the end of the world, and then the
> story got expanded in later retelling. Humans exaggerate.

"No argument there. The question, however, is 'What does the flood myth
mean?'. What is it saying about God? What does it say about the people
who told the story? Why was that story important to them?

> Global floods do not occur."

"And yet some scientists predict them anyway!" Barthel grins.

> >For example: Wegner and continental drift. He couldn't explain a
> >mechanism, therefore the existence of "Pangea" was not provable. When
> >seafloor spreading was discovered, continental drift could be explained,
> >and therefore was provable and proven.
> >
> >As long as you get to define what is provable by what is explainable,
> >you're sliding down the sharp side of Occam's razor.
>
> "I do not believe that I am doing this. As I said, something CAN be
> proven without being explained. However, it is very difficult, and
> intentionally so. You would not be happy with a scientific method that
> EASILY accepted unexplainable things as fact, without compelling
> evidence.

"How DARE you decide what I would be happy with!" exclaims Barthel in
mock horror.

"But seriously, while I don't think scientific method would allow us to
accept it as scientific fact, I would hope that scientists would not
dismiss something out of hand simply because it is currently
inexplicable.

"The way it SHOULD work is: Scientist A reports an observation. Others
review and either confirm the phenomenon or state that they were unable
to confirm. (Again, proof of the positive.)

"Too often, however, the results are dismissed because they do not fit
into the current theoretical model."

> In the case of Pangea, it was my understanding that it
> remained under consideration, because it explained so much, even before
> continental drift was discovered.

"I recently re-read Avram Davidson's article on the subject. After the
intial round of discussion, Wegner and contintnental drift were
dismissed.

"Oh, and the 'official' view was that it didn't explain much that wasn't
already explained by existing theories. Continental drift was more of a
unified field theory, in that it attempted to explain several disparate
phenomena by one mechanism.'

> However, it *WAS* the explanation
> that advanced it from a clever possibility to a near certainty."
>
> >The point of which is to say that it wasn't Christianity that caused the
> >delay in discovering this, but wrongheaded notions about perfection
> >which HAVE NO BASIS IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.
>
> "So *YOU* say. *THEY* thought they *DID* have basis in Christian
> Scriptures! With all the same ``sureness'' with which you say they were
> wrong, they had the same ``sureness'' that they were right!"

"OK, you show me where it says in the Christian (or the Hebrew)
scriptures that the planets must move in circles because the circle is
the only perfect figure.

"That idea is Pythagorean, and you know it.

"Many of the ideas about the Christian God are actually derived from the
Parmenidean 'One' that was merged into Christianity during its
Neo-Platonic infatuation.

"I've mentioned it before, but I highly recommend Etienne Gilson's
'Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages'."

> "You understand, it doesn't MATTER who's ``right'' in interpreting the
> Bible. What MATTERS is that since Christians are convinced that whatever
> they believe THIS year is ``The Truth According To God'', they have
> historically felt they had the right to beat any OTHER ideas into
> submission. And it continues to this day; since the fundamentalists
> cannot beat evolution INTELLECTUALLY, they'll try and beat it by banning
> it and requiring that creationism be taught as an equally valid theory.
> Nothing changes..."

"Inflammatory rhetoric aside, you do realize you have equated
'fundamentalists' with 'Christians' again? Fundamentalists are merely
the most vocal subset of Christians in America. They aren't even the
most numerous of all Christians.

"For that matter, all fanatics exhibit similar behaviors--even
'scientific' fanatics . . ."

> >But the broad
> >brushstrokes you're using would obscure that with the notion that the
> >church suppressed the knowledge.
>
> "I realize that I'm generalizing to SOME extent; don't make the mistake,
> however, of assuming I'm generalizing beyond reason."

"Thus the question is, 'Whose reason?'"

> >Truth is, you have to ask the right questions to find the truth.
>
> "...and Christians have historically been the ones killing and maining
> anyone who asked the questions we *NOW* know to be right."

"Oh? What about Newton? Copernicus?

"How many Nobel Prize winners have the Christians murdered this year?
This century? Give me numbers and facts--or are you arguing from
anecdote? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christians have
been murdering and maiming for religious reasons consistently for the
past 1900+ years? Can you show that it is a significant number compared
to those who have been comforted and aided by Christians?"

Barthel takes a sip and pauses to avoid fanning the sparks.

"Truth is, we humans have a tendency to remember and repeat the bad news
only.

"How many of us would have known of Mother Teresa's work if she hadn't
become something of a world celebrity?"

> >We all have blinders. I think it's unproductive to rant about the
> >shortcomings of our ancestors because they wore Christian-colored
> >blinders.
>
> "Unproductive? HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!

"Naw. Historians merely repeat each other!" Barthel grins.

> By showing people what
> Christians WERE, we are showing them what they ARE, and WILL BE AGAIN.

"But are you showing a true picture, or are you perpetuating
stereotypes? Tread carefully--much hatred and bigotry in the world
comes from the persistence of inaccurate vision."

> Have you ever read or watched ``The Handmaid's Tale''?
> THAT is what I'm afraid of."

"Watched it a few years ago. It chilled me thoroughly just because it
was a thoroughly plausible projection of the character of a
fundamentalist America."

> "For all the ``good'' Christians out there (I'm actually told the
> non-fundamentalists are the large majority), not ONE has entered the
> public eye and denounced the Christian Coalition. Not ONE has stood up
> to the Falwells and Robertsons of the world.

"Oh, we have. It just doesn't make the news because it isn't
'newsworthy'."

> We humanists are alone in
> the trenches against the forces of censorship and ignorance that are the
> Dark Side of Christianity.

"You're not alone. But it does feel lonely down here sometimes. That's
the nature of trench warfare--you can't see your allies a few feet down,
but you swear you can see the whole enemy line . . ."

> Don't tell me that these people aren't
> Christians; THEY say they are and THEY are the ones with the political
> power. Tell THEM, to their FACE, and then run away.

"No, I'm saying they're not behaving like Christians.

"You seem to think that they *are*."

> I hear they have a thing for crucifixions..."

"I'm not sure I get the reference, unless you're alluding to a
relationship with the KKK?"

> >You look thirsty. May I buy your next drink?
>
> "Always, friend. I'll have an eggnog. I hope none of this has been
> interpreted personally. I know of many fine Christians in the world, and
> it disturbs them as well when I go off like this.

"No offense taken, and I hope none given on my part as well.

"Some of my best friends, eh?" Barthel grins.

> But I truly believe
> that religion is inherently a curse; it is leftover from a time before
> Man had the tools to be ABLE to accurately explain the world around him.
> A volcano erupting was a sign from God. A lightning bolt was a sign from
> God. Man has ALWAYS been afraid of death, has ALWAYS wanted to believe
> that since life is so unfair HERE, that sometime LATER, things would be
> equalized. How natural to tell stories, first as a way of comforting the
> young, then later as a pitiful attempt to explain what to them was so
> frightening and magical? Later religions evolved from earlier ones (and
> if you don't think all the elements of Christianity existed long before
> Christ theoretically showed up, then you've got another think coming),
> and even to this day, the primitive side of ourselves wants and needs the
> comfort that religion provides. What does science have to offer in it's
> place? Cold, hard, reality. No wonder so many people prefer the fantasy
> of religion!"

"I've read Frazier's 'The Golden Bough' and am aware of the parallels
and outright assimilation that's gone on. But it seems to me that
you've just affirmed my basic argument--that not all of the things we
label as 'Christian' are indeed 'Christian'.

"My most impossible task as a pastor is to teach people the truth--even
when they don't want to hear it. And frequently, it gets lost in the
long-held notions of eternal punishment or reward for a few year's worth
of thoughts and deeds. And sometimes, I can't bring myself to speak the
whole truth to a person in crisis.

"Once as a hospital chaplain, I was working with a family when a death
ocurred. They were primarily fundamentalist, and I knew that in the
space of a few minutes, I could not change them and that confornting
them with an alien theology would cause more hurt than help. So when
one of them expressed their despair at God for allowing this to happen,
I replied, 'If God didn't understand the pain of a broken heart, I don't
think he would have put the Psalms in the Bible.'

"True? Faithful theologically? I don't think so. But pastorally
caring and appropriate? Yes.

> "Next drink's..., ummm..., I'll buy the the next round."

Thank you, my frend!

[Claudia Marie]

bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) writes:
>In article <570qpe$7...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>Shonias is intrigued by this list of points, and always one to fill
>>in the quiz...

[snip]

>>Apart from to exist? No.

>"3) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>No, definitely not.

>"No prayer? Praying is merely a way for an individual to try and effect
>things he otherwise couldn't, and it costs nothing. No Old Testament?
>Moses had quite a few tricks up his sleeve as I recall..."

>"4) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>No.

>"5) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>No.

>"6) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

Shonias may well not mind this, but I certainly did. Unbe, I find this
rude, to not accept her word, and to provisionally assume the opposite
of what she says while waiting for clarification.

I am an atheist, but even so, I have something to say on the subject of
prayer: I think that your description of it is faulty. I know plenty
of people who do not pray by way of trying to influence God's will or
what is going to happen, but rather as a form of meditation, a way
of coming to terms with what is to be. "Thy will be done" is at least
as much a prayer, for those who believe, as "Oh, please let Uncle Henry
go into remission."

Claudia
Cc: Unbe
--
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives,
be somewhere else." -- Delenn, Severed Dreams, Babylon 5 -O

[Unbeliever]

The Unbeliever, sensing more agreement than disagreement (at least in
spirit, if not in semantics), attempts to be less imflammatory. How
successful he'll be, only time will tell...

In article <329725...@ptdprolog.net>,

Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. <kkne...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:

>"Sort of like the aristocrat who received Mendel's paper on the
>inheritance of traits in peas and ignored it????"

"I don't deny that scientists are human. I just think that you should
look at their INTENDED positions. Science is DESIGNED to INCREASE
knowledge, to take its lumps when need be, swallow its pride, and
incorporate new facts into itself. It's always evolving. Christianity, on
the other hand, claims to have all the answers ahead of time. They're
all in this book, see. Anything that's contrary to the book *MUST* be
wrong, no need to look or analyze or think about it."

>"In other words, out of compassion, the church stepped in when secular
>authority could not do the job. Visions of world domination came
>later. <grin> Political authority was an unfortunate side effect and
>detour.

"Friend, you make good points and have helped me to see some of my blind
spots (more later). But one thing you will *NEVER* do is convince me
that ANY group in HISTORY has EVER assumed political power out of
``compassion''. Religion dominates, crushes, controls. It does not
assume the role of the kindly grandfather taking care of us children
because mommy got run over by an eighteen-wheeler. It is infinitely more
likely to BE the eighteen-wheeler."

>> "Art is not knowledge. Learning only one highly filtered version of
>> reality is not knowledge."
>
>"Rephrase that to "complete knowledge" and I'd agree with you. But I
>can't simply dismiss it as being of no value whatsoever. Unbalanced,
>incomplete--absolutely. But not knowledge? That I can't agree with.

"One side only IS of no value. You have no way to judge its accuracy;
nothing to compare it to! I could sit here and spout random pieces of
gibberish, a few truths and half-truths (no comments from the peanut
gallery, please!) all day, and if that's all you have to go on, what
good is it? I think knowledge must have SOME kind of value-content;
otherwise, ``2+2=SPAM'' is knowledge. ``Elbu Majsug Wibijux'' is
knowledge."

>> "Ummmm, not to put TOO fine a point on it, but if the Pope says that
>> Indulgences are part of religion, then they *ARE*. You don't get to pick
>> your own definition of Christianity."

>"Why not?
>
>"Luther did. Zwingli did. Calvin did. The Pope did. You have.
>
>"You are clearly defining Christianity by whatever is labelled as
>Christianity, no matter who applies the label, without regard to any
>other characteristic.

"It matters a great deal who applies the label. It must be the group in
question, itself! As I said before, what right have I, an outsider,
to tell a group that they're not REALLY Christian, when they say they
are? Is there a written test they have to pass? Some sort of
Christian-detector technology I wasn't previously aware of (and if so, how
do I get one)?"

"I am using the only definition an outsider can, without applying
prejudice to any. I would *LOVE* to say that the non-literalist ``good
ones'' are the only true Christians. If I could make THAT stick, it would
REALLY put a bug up the Christian Coalition's shorts! But I don't get to
DO that. The Bible isn't an objective guidebook! It can be interpreted
a zillion different ways, as has been demonstrated throughout history.
Since I think the whole THING is rubbish, I'm stuck with no way to
distinguish. I can say ``good ones'' and ``bad ones'', but of course
that's subjective too."

>"As I recall, there are quite a few feminists who are miffed, maybe
>angry or even outraged, at how the label of "feminism" has become
>applied to a militant form of persecution and propaganda that bears
>little resemblance to what they know as feminism.

"Yes. And I don't blame them. But that's life. A more radical group
claimed the name. Same thing that happened to the word ``hacker''
(and that's one that hits me personally much closer to home). And
it's the same thing that is now happening to the word ``Christian'',
today. In each of these cases, the radical ones make all the noise,
so they're the ones who get to decide the terminology. If the ``good
Christians'' would just stir the pot enough to get noticed, maybe they
could reclaim the name. But for now, my casual usage of ``Christian''
as a synonym for ``Fundamentalist Christian'' is merely a reflection of
the common modern usage."

>"Get your facts straight. Papal infallibility (specifically, when
>speaking ex cathedra) was first declared by Vatican I in 1869-70.

[...]

>For the next 1500 years or so, there was no
>official pronouncement of Papal infallibility, and, in point of fact,
>ecumenical councils were considered to have a greater authority than the
>Pope.

"Point taken. I bow to greater historical knowledge. However, I still
say that it's the people calling themselves Christian who get to decide
what ``Christian'' is. If the pope, even before ``infallibility'',
proclaimed that something was Christian, then that's good enough for me.
I can't and won't judge whether or not something *IS* Christian. I
merely judge the acts of those who claim the title for themselves."

>"As far as I'm concerned, generalizing when I know that differences
>exist leads me down the slippery slope of intellectual dishonesty."

"I'm saying that Christians have committed horrible atrocities, and they
have. I'm saying that when religion (ANY religion) gains political
power, only bad things result. I'm blaming Christianity for the worst
excesses of its worst members, and maybe that's overly harsh. I don't
think that all feminists share the traits of the extremists, to use your
example. However, there's something... insidious... about religion, and
about Christianity in particular, that leads me towards the
generalization.

"There are people in all groups that do horrible things. But
Christianity, despite my own personal ideas concerning what Jesus
theoretically tried to teach, LENDS itself to the worst. It's too easy
to justify any action by pointing to the Bible. It's too easy to rise
to power by force of charisma alone. God's not around to ask who's
right and who's wrong. So any charlatan who yells loud enough and
thumps his Bible vigorously enough, can rise to prominance, supported by
the sheep, err, ``less loud Christians'', and there's nobody who can
claim greater authority to stop him. Scientists, on the other hand, get
*NOWHERE* based on charisma, if their ideas don't stand up. We didn't
realize how completely on-track Einstein was until years after his
death. We're STILL finding that things he predicted are turning out to
be true."

"In summary: Christianity lends its full weight to whoever has the
loudest voice. Science is MUCH more cautious. It is the very fact that
Science *IS* so cautious that makes it so easy to take advantage of by
the Christians. Since science doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers, its
vulnerable to those to DO make that claim. Science has to consider
carefully what Christianity says; Christianity has no such obligation.
So I'm not at all shocked by the Falwells and Robertsons; they're what I
*EXPECT* from a belief system with no basis in rationality. And I blame
the system that generates clowns like these, for the damage they do. Is
this unreasonable?"

>"Prior to Gutenberg and Luther, Biblical literalism wasn't even an
>issue. There simply weren't enough copies to go around. Unfortunately,
>most local priests were also illiterate. One of Luther's shocks was the
>extreme variance between what was being taught in the churches and what
>was originally taught by Paul.

``But does the word ``Christianity'' belong to the long-dead guys who
started it, or to the living guys who believe (however rightly or wrongly
is not for me to judge) that they are following in their footsteps?"

>"Now, their only source of faith is the Bible alone. They have become
>convinced that if any one verse of the Bible is not literal, then the
>whole thing is a sham. They have no depth of faith.
>
>"While it may mean nothing to you, I was ordained and authorized to
>preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. I am called to
>shepherd the sheep.
>
>"In other words, 'It' my yob, man!'"

"Wow. I'd love to get you to have an Email discussion with one of my
best friends. He's a creationist, but quite rational otherwise, and
*NOTHING* I say on the subject can put a dent in his armor. An actual
preacher who argues as well as you with as much historical knowledge as
you seem to have, might finally be what brings him around..." :)

"My own response to this is still: the spiritual progeny of those
illiterates you mention are STILL the loudest voice claiming the mantle of
``Christianity''. If you don't agree with them, I cordially invite you
into the public spotlight to take them on. I'll be rooting for you. But
meanwhile, THEY are the Christians, and you're just some shmoe who
actually follows a pattern of beliefs closer (IMHO) to what Jesus
theoretically taught."

>> who am I to say that they weren't REALLY Christian, and only these nice,
>> quiet types in the corner are the ``true Christians''?"
>
>"By their fruits.

"I should judge them based on their gay members? Oh wait, nevermind..." ;)

>"Sorry, couldn't avoid the scriptural reference, but it's true. And
>you've almost said as much when you point out the vast distinction
>between what Christianity aspires to and the atrocities committed in its
>name.

"As I mentioned above, Christianity LENDS itself to the abuse in
question. It ASKS to be taken over by idiots and warped. It does not
provide sufficient countermeasures to renounce the preachers of hate,
prejudice, and censorship. It ALLOWS the atrocities to occur in it's
name, and only denounces them later after they've already come and gone.
For all their posturing, it wasn't Christians who freed the slaves. The
Bible teaches that slavery is fine, slaves should be happy. It wasn't
Christians who gave women the vote. Eve was the Original Sinner, and
Christians have never forgiven her entire gender for it. The Bible tells
women to shut up and obey their husbands. Women STILL can't be priests
in many of the flavors of Christianity."

>"Sorry, I must have been unclear.
>
>"I wasn't trying to absolve Christianity of its guilt in the crimes
>perpetrated in its name.

"Good, because the guilt is manifest, the crimes an abomination, and if
Christianity were a person on trial, I'd lobby for the death penalty."

"The good that is now done in the name of Christianity would still be done.
That's just human nature. It just wouldn't be done in the name of religion."

>"I was attempting to defend Christianity from blanket condemnation and
>correct a few factual errors.

"The condemnation is deserved. The good does not outweigh the evil
(IMHO). The corrections of factual errors (when that is truly what they
are) are appreciated, always. The discussion is enjoyed and valued, in
any case."

>> If we get to pick and choose like that, then of COURSE
>> Christianity looks good!
>
>"I think it still looks good. Very tarnished and abused, but in its
>essence, good."

"You say it's a good tree with a few bad fruit. I say it's an evil tree,
*POSSIBLY* having sprung from a well-meaning seed, with not NEARLY enough
fruit who remember the seed to be worth saving the tree for."

"...and that's as far as I care to take THAT metaphor."

>> If I could pick and choose which people to
>> apply the term ``Nazi'' to, I bet I could give THEIR image quite a
>> spit-shine, as well!"
>
>"Can we avoid invoking the 'Hitler rule'?" Barthel grins.

"Yes please. I did not intend a comparison, which would cause the rule
to be triggered. I merely intended to demonstrate that, if you get to
decide who gets what labels, you can prove ANYTHING. This is why I
refuse to play favorites with the name ``Christian''. I'm not one, so I
get no say. I say, let the folks who claim the title, come out of the
woodwork and slug it out between them. The last one standing gets the
title."

>"But let's talk about what he did accomplish

"No thanks; don't see the point. This topic has diverged enough." :)

>> "Very true. I agree that in general, Christians proclaim their revulsion
>> of acts such as those I've attributed to them. But when these same acts
>> are repeated, over and over, in the very NAME of Christianity, I can't
>> help but blame Christianity for it."
>
>"And there's the difference between us. I blame the human beings who
>perpetrated it. Personal responsibility and all that.

"If a bank were to leave its money out on the tables in the middle of the
room with no locks on the doors, it would be hard to place sole blame for
the inevitable robbery on the criminal himself. Christianity is a parent
with a million small children and a loaded gun in the closet. It *SHOULD*
voluntarily reliquish it's claim to power, in order to better teach
family values. But if it insists on claiming the power, then at the very
least it should have some means of preventing the children from shooting
each other. When a child DOES grab the gun and start waving it around,
Christianity has no business looking all surprised about it, and
preaching ``personal responsibility''. It's been criminally negligent in
allowing the situation to happen in the first place..."

(Geez, I worked so *HARD* for that metaphor, and I *STILL* don't think
I got it right...)

>"But, I must also blame the church. Not in its fundamental vision, but
>in how it's living that vision. The church as a corporate body must
>also take a degree of responsibility for the actions of its members.
>Reformed and reforming, and all that."

"Ah. So we agree that it has SOME responsibility, but just differ on the
degree."

>> "The job of the scientist is to keep an open mind.
>
>"But what about the scientists who DON'T? Does that condemn the
>scientist or science in general?"

"Science does a far better job of catching its delinquents than religion
*EVER* has. And it's *MUCH* faster in owning up the to the guilt when it
fails (as all human endeavers do, from time to time)."

"The one thing that Christians (OK, OK, Fundamentalists) have tried to do
for the past two decades has been to lower the image of science down to
the level of religion. Once science becomes ``just another religious
belief'', then it loses its main line of defense. Creationism becomes
``just as reasonable'' as evolution. Prayer in school becomes ``just as
reasonable'' as not praying, since not praying means that you're really
worshiping the gods of secular humanism. The attack on science is one of
the WORST crimes committed in the name of Christianity, and it continues
to this day."

>"However, inasmuch as religion does not deal with objective reality, but
>the subjective (and immeasurable) experience of objective reality, it
>cannot be proven by scientific method and cannot become science.

"So... what's the difference, in your opinion, between Christians such as
yourself, and philosophers? The subject matter? Philosophers debate God
all the time."

>"For the record, I believe that UFOs are exactly that: Unidentified
>Flying Objects. Unfortunately, the term 'UFO' has been co-opted to mean
>'flying saucer with alien abductors aboard'.
>
>"Hmm--just what I was saying about the term 'christian' being co-opted."

"...and ``feminist'' and ``hacker''. Yes. We agree. The term has
narrowed in modern times. However, in the case of ``Christianity'', the
term has similarly shifted many, many times (and in many places)
throughout history. Again, this is due to the fact that anyone with a
loud enough voice can claim to ``speak for God'' -- and who can refute
this?"

>"And I assert that it never will be able to prove it self, for the
>reasons mentioned above.

"Probably not. Though I contend that if your God wasn't such a bastard,
he'd show himself and get this whole thing over with once and for all." :)

>"You're welcome to view it as superstition if you find it so
>appropriate. But I think 'superstition' is a loaded term, semantically,
>that colors your perceptions and rhetoric.

"The loaded-ness is intentional. There is no difference between belief
in Jesus and belief in Santa Claus. They are equally probable, with
similar numbers of followers, and even share a birthday! But few
grownups buy into the Santa Theory, even though they have very likely
experienced more direct evidence for Santa Claus."

"We have more and better evidence of Bigfoot, Nessie, and actual alien
visitations than we'll EVER have for Jesus. The only thing that makes
Jesus special is Public Relations (which single-handedly accounts for the
story's longevity)."

>"The blinder of science is that it (or rather the humans who practice
>it) is uncomfortable with unexplained observations. They tend to be
>explained away as observational or experimental error until the
>theoretical viewpoint can be altered to accept the new data.

"...and they are overwhelmingly often shown to be right for their
skepticism."

>"No argument there. The question, however, is 'What does the flood myth
>mean?'. What is it saying about God? What does it say about the people
>who told the story? Why was that story important to them?

"If a global flood never happened, then the story says very little about
God. Unless, of course, you agree with me that God, too, is a man-made
construction. All it says about the people who told the story is that
they either (A) once encountered a local flood and like to exaggerate, or
(B) sometimes get confused between fiction and history. I'd say the
latter is a large part of the explanation for the Bible and modern
Fundamentalism..."

>"But seriously, while I don't think scientific method would allow us to
>accept it as scientific fact, I would hope that scientists would not
>dismiss something out of hand simply because it is currently
>inexplicable.

"If the evidence is strong that something HAPPENED, they won't dismiss it
because they don't understand it -- more likely, they'll go NUTS trying
to explain it, to repeat it, to measure and calculate it..."

"However, it's true that in a contest between a single eyewitness with no
means of reproducing the phenomena, and long-held established scientific
theory, they have little choice but to stand pat on what they KNOW."

"In the case of history, the situation is more difficult. You can't
reproduce it, though a seperate unrelated account of the same event
might be found. In general, they have to weigh the probabilities and
play the odds. A story about a man parting the Red Sea in order to free
a few Jewish slaves and then crashing the waves together to drown the
pursuers just isn't going to carry much weight, given what we know about
physics and geology. What's more likely, that a story could be made up
or exaggerated somehow, or that a heretofore undetected supernatural
being chose to intercede in the affairs of a few primitive Egyptians and
their slaves?"

>"The way it SHOULD work is: Scientist A reports an observation. Others
>review and either confirm the phenomenon or state that they were unable
>to confirm. (Again, proof of the positive.)
>
>"Too often, however, the results are dismissed because they do not fit
>into the current theoretical model."

"Once is too often for this to occur. All results should be verified, or
proven false. And you're right, sometimes results are merely
ignored, instead. But this is VERY rare (*MUCH* more rare than it was
for Christianity to ignore ITS inconvenient facts over the past two
millenia), and once again, at least give them the benefit of playing the
odds. If 100 people have measured gravity at 9.8 meters per second
squared, and you measure it at 3 meters per second squared, what's
more likely? Equipment failure in one case, or the same exact degree of
failure in 100 other cases? Or that the mass of the earth varies
depending on where you're standing?"

"The fallacy of that last argument, of course, is that if EVERYONE throws
away that ``one measurement aberration'', they might ALL be throwing away
pieces to a much larger puzzle. Once again, though, it is the POLICY of
science to verify all findings. Compare this to the experience of
Galileo, who couldn't even convince the local Christian authorities to
look through his telescope and see for themselves!"

>> "So *YOU* say. *THEY* thought they *DID* have basis in Christian
>> Scriptures! With all the same ``sureness'' with which you say they were
>> wrong, they had the same ``sureness'' that they were right!"
>
>"OK, you show me where it says in the Christian (or the Hebrew)
>scriptures that the planets must move in circles because the circle is
>the only perfect figure.

"*BEEP* Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. I never said anything of
the sort. But the Christian scholars of the day DID say that, and they
were for THEIR time what you claim to be for YOURS. An authority.
Without playing favoritism over which interpretation is ``right'', all I
can say is the Bible lends itself to being interpreted however the
interpretor CHOOSES. It's awfully unclear and obscure in its message,
for a work inspired by a perfect being."

>"That idea is Pythagorean, and you know it.
>
>"Many of the ideas about the Christian God are actually derived from the
>Parmenidean 'One' that was merged into Christianity during its
>Neo-Platonic infatuation.

"Many if not all of Jesus' supposed teachings came from earlier sources
as well. So did the notion of the virgin birth, of a god having a child
through a human female, of ``signs and portents'' signalling such an
event, and on and on. The whole Jesus story frankly sounds like
second-rate plagiarism to me..."

>"How many Nobel Prize winners have the Christians murdered this year?
>This century? Give me numbers and facts--or are you arguing from
>anecdote? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christians have
>been murdering and maiming for religious reasons consistently for the
>past 1900+ years? Can you show that it is a significant number compared
>to those who have been comforted and aided by Christians?"

"Of course not. There's a zillion people who call themselves Christian,
and people are GENERALLY decent to one another. Besides, they've
never had any problem with the truth, so long as it doesn't contradict
their dogma. However, the official church position has at many times in
the past amounted to ``if it contradicts the Bible, it's the ravings of
a heretic who should be burned at the stake''. I'll dig up the
references if I must, but I'm sure you don't deny this."

"Why do we never hear of ``scientific persecution''? Why is the term
``religious persecution'' so common? It's not because the religious
folks have been notoriously open-minded..."

>"How many of us would have known of Mother Teresa's work if she hadn't
>become something of a world celebrity?"

"Oh *PLEASE* don't get me started on HER."

>> By showing people what
>> Christians WERE, we are showing them what they ARE, and WILL BE AGAIN.
>
>"But are you showing a true picture, or are you perpetuating
>stereotypes? Tread carefully--much hatred and bigotry in the world
>comes from the persistence of inaccurate vision."

"The picture I paint is as true enough. More true than the one they
paint of science, and of nonbelievers. Christianity has earned any
backlash it has coming from me."

>> Have you ever read or watched ``The Handmaid's Tale''?
>> THAT is what I'm afraid of."
>
>"Watched it a few years ago. It chilled me thoroughly just because it
>was a thoroughly plausible projection of the character of a
>fundamentalist America."

"PRECISELY. Now check out the Religious Right. Listen to Ralph Reed
smile and slime and ooze. It's not as far off as we'd thought. The
fundamentalists already have FAR too much political power in this
country, and they're growing! I hate to sound alarmist, but I'm feeling
mighty alarmed!"

>"Oh, we have. It just doesn't make the news because it isn't
>'newsworthy'."

"If it doesn't make the news, it's not a victory. Public opinion is
swayed by what they SEE. What matters the battle, when the war is lost?"

>> We humanists are alone in
>> the trenches against the forces of censorship and ignorance that are the
>> Dark Side of Christianity.
>
>"You're not alone. But it does feel lonely down here sometimes. That's
>the nature of trench warfare--you can't see your allies a few feet down,
>but you swear you can see the whole enemy line . . ."

"My allies are being awfully damned quiet as well. If they think they're
going to win this war QUIETLY, they'll well-intentionedly doom us all..."

>"No, I'm saying they're not behaving like Christians.
>"You seem to think that they *are*."

"I'm saying they act as they act, and they claim the title. Nobody's
challenging them, so they get the whole enchilada."

>> I hear they have a thing for crucifixions..."
>
>"I'm not sure I get the reference, unless you're alluding to a
>relationship with the KKK?"

"Well -- the KKK certainly alludes the relationship... and I *AM* trying
to stay out of the whole ``who's a Christian'' question; if they say they
are and nobody raises a fuss, then they ARE -- but no, I didn't mean that
implication."

>"No offense taken, and I hope none given on my part as well.

"Nope. I can't even find a place where I COULD have taken offense;
you've done much better in that respect than I have."

>"Some of my best friends, eh?" Barthel grins.

"Heh. Precisely."

>"I've read Frazier's 'The Golden Bough' and am aware of the parallels
>and outright assimilation that's gone on. But it seems to me that
>you've just affirmed my basic argument--that not all of the things we
>label as 'Christian' are indeed 'Christian'.

"To THAT extent, *NONE* of what we call Christian is really that. Except
maybe the witch-burnings." ;)

>"My most impossible task as a pastor is to teach people the truth--even
>when they don't want to hear it. And frequently, it gets lost in the
>long-held notions of eternal punishment or reward for a few year's worth
>of thoughts and deeds. And sometimes, I can't bring myself to speak the
>whole truth to a person in crisis.

"Straighten me doc, 'cause I'm ready!" :)

(Though as the new vice president of the Corvallis Secular Society, it
occurs to me that I might oughta be a BIT less willing to listen to the
other side!) ;)

(That was a joke.)

(Laugh already.)

>"True? Faithful theologically? I don't think so. But pastorally
>caring and appropriate? Yes.

"For some people, the truth isn't as important as being comfortable.
(Had I been you, I'd have probably done the same thing). Funny, though,
that those are the sorts who lean towards religion the strongest..."

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-

EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

P.S. These three lines were added just because I thought it would be
amusing for the total number of lines in this post to equal 666. No
other reason. Really. Hehehehehe.

[Firesong]

Firesong notes that Unbeliever spake thusly.
>In article <1G30wMA0...@firesong.demon.co.uk>,
>Firesong <fire...@firesong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Ummm, Unbe. I should like to point out that whilst your statement _may_
>>be true of some people (into religion _primarily_ to avoid mortality),
>>it is not true of either myself nor most of the young christians that I
>>know. (or indeed the young Wiccans) (double funny, felt no need to
>>capitalise my own religion) I am not 'into' christianity for the then, I
>>am 'into' it for the _now_.
>
>Unbe shakes his head. "I should have made that statement more clear, I
>can tell. I didn't mean to imply anything about the CONSCIOUS reason
>people join religions. But generally, the APPEAL of religion is that it
>provides an artificial comfort (i.e. not based in solid, provable fact).
>See another branch of this thread, where I discuss Asimov's ``Security
>Beliefs'', for more on this. Basically, since we don't have PROOF of
>various things that we really want to be true, we tend to shrug and
>choose to believe them ANYWAY. If religion didn't fill emotional need, it
>wouldn't exist. At all. Think about it. And if there were actual
>REASON to believe these things, it wouldn't be religion anymore. It
>would be SCIENCE."
>

Umm, true. And I don't think I suggested otherwise. I have an emotional
requirement for my belief. It's just not directed at death. My
requirement is for something to help me _live_ the way I feel I should,
not to assuage any fear of death.

Heaven and hell do not interest me, even as concepts. I require no
promises of what follows my life.

<There's more I want to say here, but the words won't come>

Firesong

>
>
> Be True...
> -=*> Unbeliever <*=-
>
> EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
> WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr
>

--
New Web Page : http://www.firesong.demon.co.uk/
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[him.]

In article <5759p1$9...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <570qpe$7...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:

>>In article <56tq7r$s...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>>1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
>>> protecting mankind.
>>Sort of... but not exactly, and not so much protect as... be a part of
>>or something.
>Unbe smiles. "Protect."
>He gets out a little notepad and writes down "1) Yes."

Al looks concerned.

>>>2) There is no such thing, really, as death.
>>Again sort of, wwell actually, yes.
>"Thank you. 2) Yes."
>>>3) There is some purpose to the universe.

>>Apart from to exist? No.
>"3) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

Al looks very concerned.

>>>4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
>>> for nothing.

>>No, definitely not.
>"No prayer? Praying is merely a way for an individual to try and effect
>things he otherwise couldn't, and it costs nothing. No Old Testament?
>Moses had quite a few tricks up his sleeve as I recall..."
>"4) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>>5) You are better than the next fellow.
>>No.
>"You're not going to heaven? You're not specially ``saved''? You aren't
>one of the Chosen People, the ones God hand-picked as his special ones?"

>"5) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>>>6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.
>>No.
>"No devils, demons, witches, evil spirits? No heathens to point to?
>Scapegoats to blame?"

>"6) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

>"If my assumptions about your religion are true (which they may very
>easily not be; every religion's got its own take on things), then I'm
>counting 6 out of 6. If not, then I humbly beg your forgiveness for
>my rudeness in assuming something untrue about your belief system."

"Grrr." Al emotes. "Unbe, there's a point I want to get across here:
Until you have Evidence one way or another you CANNOT assume, ESPECIALLY
when one has a statistical sample as horrendous as yours is."

"Now," He says, "I want you to carve this backwards on the business end
of a hammer and bash yourself on the head with it until the point gets
through your skull. Okay?"

>"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"

"Criminy." Al says.

Big Al. Carl would be spinning in his grave if we were discussing anything
else.

[Craig Helfgott]

Reed Byers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Leslie wrote:
>
> > Having made friends with death some fifteen or so years ago, Leslie
> > listens to Unbe and Kestrel with increasing worry and concern.
>
> The Unbeliever arches an eyebrow at that "friends with death" bit, but
> says nothing.
>
> > "You feel suicidal because you're afraid of death?" Leslie asks. "I'm
> > sorry, but you've got to know how that sounds...."
>
> "Not as strange as you think. Hopelessness... despair... futility... are
> all perfectly common reasons for contemplating suicide. If I weren't so
> good at avoiding thinking about death, I'd probably consider it myself.
> Those attacks, while purely psychological, are *BAD*."
>
> > "I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see the two of you just sitting around
> > suffering like this. Anytime ANYONE has a problem that interfers with
> > their normal, day-to-day functioning like this has a PROBLEM.
>
> "Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
> Kestrel and I have. Reincarnation, souls, ghosts, various promises of
> life-after-death (including Christianity and almost all other Religion),
> all exist primarily to help people not WORRY about mortality. Kestrel
> and I just can't buy into those answers, even though we envy the
> followers of those beliefs for NOT having those worries."
>
> "Speaking just for me, the attacks don't interfere with DAY-TO-DAY
> functioning. When it DOES crop up (generally on the order of once a
> month, though it all depends on whatever brings the thought to mind to
> begin with), I can usually beat the thought out of my head (mentally; no
> physical violence is implied), or at worst, call and talk to someone else
> (Jez). It's only been fairly recently that I could even TALK about the
> attacks without taking the mental leap to the SUBJECT that causes them,
> and thus actually causing one inadvertantly."
>
> > If this is
> > preventing you from living your lives to the fullest, if it's interfering
> > with you living your lives the way you really want to live them, then I
> > can only very *strongly* urge you both to look into getting some kind of
> > therapy or counselling to teach you how to deal with this, or perhaps
> > even cure you of the phobia aspects altogether.
>
> Unbe half-snickers. "Of course, talking about it in any greater depth
> than I'm currently doing would trigger the very attack I'm trying to
> avoid..."
>
> > "Don't let this ruin even a *part* of your lives. Life is, you will
> > have noticed, too short to be wasting time suffering from fears which can
> > be vanquished -- *if* you get the right kind of help, to teach you how.
>
> Unbe sighs. "I also have VERY little faith in therapists."
>
> > "Please, please, think about it? It makes me unhappy to think of you
> > suffering needlessly."
>
> "I just don't see a path from HERE to THERE. Therapists can't change the
> nature of the universe. And I just don't *SEE* being comfortable with
> such a large unknown..."
>
> "And if a therapist tried to hook me on religion as an answer, I might
> just have to kill her..."

>
> Be True...
> -=*> Unbeliever <*=-
>
> EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
> WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

I am quoting the entire post because I am having the exact same problems
as Unbeliever. I don't have attacks (perhaps because I am better at
supressing my emotions), but I do have mini-attacks at least once or
twice a week, where I think about the topic for five or ten minutes and
wind up thoroughly depressing myself for the next two hours. I have been
looking for things. I've posted to the magick groups, I've thought about
various philosophies and religions. I *want* to believe. I can't. It's
hard. You go on. You ignore it. You put it out of your mind. And then,
for some reason, it hits you again. You're going to die. Everything you
know is going to die, the Universe itself will end, and there will be no
one, nothing left to remember. No sign that you ever existed. You would
say it is the hallmark of an evil, sadistic, insane god, but without
God, you don't even have anything to rage against, and its all futile. I
hold on by the fact that I don't know everything. I don't know all of
physics. If I live long enough, maybe we'll find a way out of entropy.
That's how I hold on. That and my more immediate fear of death. I try
not to think about it too much.

Craig

[John Palmer]

Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. (kkne...@ptdprolog.net) wrote:

: I don't.

: I long ago came to the conclusion that I can't do anything about it one
: way or the other. This is because I believe so strongly in the
: sovereignty of God: when (and if) the time comes that I am to be
: judged, if I am found wanting then so be it. I do my best to live my
: life with integrity and in accordance with what I perceive God's wishes
: to be.

Grin. And then to quote someone, somewhere, somewhen, "And then, if
God is just, I have no fear, but if God is unjust, we ALL must
fear."

[Shonias]

In article <5781l6$4...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>otherwise, ``2+2=SPAM'' is knowledge. ``Elbu Majsug Wibijux'' is

Shonias leaps in the air "Oh thankyou Unbe! I have seen the light! All
is now clear!"

Shonias skips around the room with her new secret knowledge muttering
"Elbu Majsug Wibijux" and "Of course, I've been so blind" and other
such.

Shonias
(who really is just being silly, if you managed to read any meaning into
that, you're a better man than I)

--
****************************************
Only wanted to stay a while,
Only wanted to play a while,
Then you taught me to fly like a bird...
****************************************

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

YES!

Who said that? It's familiar, but I can't place it?

<scratching head furiously>

Barthel

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

Unbeliever wrote:

8<snippage throughout>8

> In article <329725...@ptdprolog.net>,
> Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. <kkne...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:

> "I don't deny that scientists are human. I just think that you should
> look at their INTENDED positions.

"Do you see what you're saying here? Judge scientists by their
INTENTIONS but Christians by their RESULTS. (And perceptions of
results, at that.) Methinks there's a double standard in there
somewhere."

> Christianity, on
> the other hand, claims to have all the answers ahead of time. They're
> all in this book, see. Anything that's contrary to the book *MUST* be
> wrong, no need to look or analyze or think about it."

Again, you're only expressing the viewpoint of the "inerrant biblical
literalist" alone. (You did speak to your perspective on this
elsewhere, so I'll deal with it again as it comes up.)

> But one thing you will *NEVER* do is convince me
> that ANY group in HISTORY has EVER assumed political power out of
> ``compassion''.

"I respectfully disagree. While in some cases it is no doubt true,
especially when it comes to maintaining and increasing political power,
there are cases, such as Gregory, where political power is a consequence
of successful leadership in the face of a crisis."

> Religion dominates, crushes, controls. It does not
> assume the role of the kindly grandfather taking care of us children
> because mommy got run over by an eighteen-wheeler. It is infinitely more
> likely to BE the eighteen-wheeler."

XXX

> "One side only IS of no value. You have no way to judge its accuracy;
> nothing to compare it to!

.
.
.

> I think knowledge must have SOME kind of value-content;

"I think we crossed wires here. You had said, "Art is not knowledge",
but from what you've said here, I suspect your issue is not with
didactic art, per se, but your continued contention that Christianity is
not only one-sided, but downright at variance with the facts.

> >"You are clearly defining Christianity by whatever is labelled as
> >Christianity, no matter who applies the label, without regard to any
> >other characteristic.
>
> "It matters a great deal who applies the label. It must be the group in
> question, itself! As I said before, what right have I, an outsider,
> to tell a group that they're not REALLY Christian, when they say they
> are?

"By your logic, I could claim that I am an African-American woman, and
you, by virtue of not being me, would have no right to tell me that I'm
wrong.

"If you have insufficient information to determine whether the label
which a group uses to identify itself is both accurate and appropriate,
I submit that you have insufficient information to pass judgment on the
group or the label."

> "I am using the only definition an outsider can, without applying
> prejudice to any.

"I'd hardly say you're not applying prejudice to any." <grin>

> The Bible isn't an objective guidebook!

"Of course it isn't! It is a book written by and for a people who share
a common heritage of faith. It puts its own theological "spin" on
historical events. The assertion that the Bible is an objective guide
to life is one of the fallacies that has permeated contemporary American
culture.

"For that matter, 3/4 of the Bible says nothing about Christianity.
Instead it's about God and the people of Israel. Only the last eighth
says anything about the group that would later be called "Christians".

"So, if you're searching for criteria to distinguish among Christians,
you really won't find it in the Bible--the label didn't exist when those
documents were written."

> In each of these cases, the radical ones make all the noise,
> so they're the ones who get to decide the terminology.

"While that may be true in practical terms for the general populace,
I've found that those who desire precsion, like scientists, eschew such
over-generalizations.

"For the record, I rail against the corruption of "hacker" as well."

> If the ``good
> Christians'' would just stir the pot enough to get noticed, maybe they
> could reclaim the name. But for now, my casual usage of ``Christian''
> as a synonym for ``Fundamentalist Christian'' is merely a reflection of
> the common modern usage."

"I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again:

"Why is it that when we discuss religion, even people who are trained in
critical thinking and logical argument will descend to the expediency of
generalization?

"I'm starting to think this mode of discussion is a cop out for 'By
summarily dismissing Christianity and other religions as being of no
value, or better yet, as actually being detrimental, then they cannot
speak to us and have no claim on our lives.'"

> If the pope, even before ``infallibility'',
> proclaimed that something was Christian, then that's good enough for me.

"In that case, you're more obedient to the Pope than many Christians."
<grin>

> I can't and won't judge whether or not something *IS* Christian. I
> merely judge the acts of those who claim the title for themselves."

"In that case, neither can you judge Christianity. As you are only
judging those who call themselves 'Christian' without determining how
well they fit into the class 'Christian', you cannot determine if
Christianity is bad in and of itself or if your test cases are merely
bad Christians."

> I'm blaming Christianity for the worst
> excesses of its worst members, and maybe that's overly harsh. I don't
> think that all feminists share the traits of the extremists, to use your
> example. However, there's something... insidious... about religion, and
> about Christianity in particular, that leads me towards the
> generalization.

"Up until now in our discussion, you've been focusing on 'what
Christians do'. Let's see what you have to say about 'Christianity'."

> "There are people in all groups that do horrible things. But
> Christianity, despite my own personal ideas concerning what Jesus
> theoretically tried to teach, LENDS itself to the worst. It's too easy
> to justify any action by pointing to the Bible. It's too easy to rise
> to power by force of charisma alone. God's not around to ask who's
> right and who's wrong. So any charlatan who yells loud enough and
> thumps his Bible vigorously enough, can rise to prominance, supported by
> the sheep, err, ``less loud Christians'', and there's nobody who can
> claim greater authority to stop him. Scientists, on the other hand, get
> *NOWHERE* based on charisma, if their ideas don't stand up. We didn't
> realize how completely on-track Einstein was until years after his
> death. We're STILL finding that things he predicted are turning out to
> be true."

"I think these are your objections:
a) the Bible is not an objective standard for behvior
b) religious authority is based primarily on charisma
c) God is not available to act as an arbiter
d) there are no standards or authority for accountability

"To which I respond:
a) Agreed. The Bible does not speak to every aspect of human
behavior. In many cases, the situations to which it does speak no
longer exist. As it was written over a period of centuries, the social
context was changing even as the books were written.
b) Only as much as in any other human endeavor.
c) Agreed. God is not giving us clear unambiguous signals. God is
calling us to choose for ourselves.
d) Au contraire! There are doctrinal standards and behavior standards
for religious authority. I, for example, needed 7 years of school (B.A.
and M.Div.), psychological battery and review, and field placement
evaluation. I can loose my standing or suffer other consequences for
serious infractions."

> So I'm not at all shocked by the Falwells and Robertsons; they're what I
> *EXPECT* from a belief system with no basis in rationality. And I blame
> the system that generates clowns like these, for the damage they do. Is
> this unreasonable?"

"Yes. The problem is that their starting assumptions are different from
yours. (And from mine as well.)

"I recently had a brief introduction to the theology of hate groups
which caused me some surprise. It is well established in Biblical
criticism that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Usually
fundamentalists will take the second as a summary of the first and a
prologue to the Garden of Eden. But some hate groups recognize the two
stories and theneby proclaim that there were two creations. Guess who
was created separately. C'mon, guess!

"Point is, if you grant the starting assumptions, the remainder usually
is rational and logical.

"And I think where you and I disagree are on some of our starting
assumptions."

> "Wow. I'd love to get you to have an Email discussion with one of my
> best friends. He's a creationist, but quite rational otherwise, and
> *NOTHING* I say on the subject can put a dent in his armor. An actual
> preacher who argues as well as you with as much historical knowledge as
> you seem to have, might finally be what brings him around..." :)

"Thanks for the compliment. You are most kind.

"Although I should tell you, in the strictest sense of the word, I am a
creationist. What science unfolds about our origins, cosmic and
biological, tells me HOW God accomplished it. But I still believe God
is behind it.

"One of my all-time favorite T-shirts is: 'And God said: <insert
Maxwell's equation here> and there was light.'"

> But meanwhile, THEY are the Christians, and you're just some shmoe who
> actually follows a pattern of beliefs closer (IMHO) to what Jesus
> theoretically taught."

"Gee, and I thought you *liked* me!" <grin>

"Seems to me though that your definition has shifted. Previously you
declared that 'if it says it's a duck, it's a duck'. Now, you seem to
be saying that the label 'Christian' only applies to the subset of
loudmouth fundamentalists.

> "As I mentioned above, Christianity LENDS itself to the abuse in
> question. It ASKS to be taken over by idiots and warped. It does not
> provide sufficient countermeasures to renounce the preachers of hate,
> prejudice, and censorship. It ALLOWS the atrocities to occur in it's
> name, and only denounces them later after they've already come and gone.

"OUCH! I'd hate for you to proclaim that about victims of rape or other
forms of abuse.

"You are correct, however, that organized Christianity does not provide
sufficient countermeasures--primarily because there is no one
organziational body for Christianity as a whole. The closest thing we
have is the World Counicl of Churches, but that body has no jurisdiction
over individual denominations.

"Many individual denominations *do*, however.

"Sufficiently charismatic individuals can and have split off and
foundeed their own denominations or independent churches. Jim Jones of
Guyana Kool-Aid fame, was one such person. But beyond official
chastisement and loss of standing, there was little that the
denomination could do to stop him. There's a little law known as 'the
separation of church and state'.

"Gee, maybe that silly clause about "freedom of religion" means that
folks are allowed to believe whatever they want and call it whatever
they want."

> For all their posturing, it wasn't Christians who freed the slaves.

"Ever hear about the Amistad?"

> It wasn't Christians who gave women the vote.

"Christians didn't have the authority to give them the vote."

> The Bible tells women to shut up and obey their husbands.

"No, Paul said that to one particular group. The Bible contains several
instances of women who acted independently and does not condemn them."

> "The good that is now done in the name of Christianity would still be done.
> That's just human nature. It just wouldn't be done in the name of religion."

I somewhat doubt it. All philosophies of ethics can be subverted by one
who disobeys the rules. Our evolution tends to favor a 'me and mine
first' ethic.

> I merely intended to demonstrate that, if you get to
> decide who gets what labels, you can prove ANYTHING. This is why I
> refuse to play favorites with the name ``Christian''. I'm not one, so I
> get no say. I say, let the folks who claim the title, come out of the
> woodwork and slug it out between them. The last one standing gets the
> title."

"In that case, your judgment is premature, since there are still several
folks still slugging it out.

"But I still say that it boils down to the fact that you are essentially
using an udefined term, since you will not specify what constitutes a
Christian.

> It *SHOULD*
> voluntarily reliquish it's claim to power, in order to better teach
> family values.

"Claim to power? I think that's a new aspect that you haven't
introduced previously.

"Where does Christianity eve begin to have a claim on power, let alone
insist on maintaining it? Last I looked, the is was a free country."

> "Ah. So we agree that it has SOME responsibility, but just differ on the
> degree."

"Yes, I think we do. It's kind of ironic that I, the Christian pastor,
am advocating the importance of personal responsibility for one's
actions, and you, the Humanist, are advocating strict hierarchical
control. How'd that happen? <grin>"

> "Science does a far better job of catching its delinquents than religion
> *EVER* has. And it's *MUCH* faster in owning up the to the guilt when it
> fails (as all human endeavers do, from time to time)."

"I suspect that this is more because scientists are a more unified
community globally than are Christians.

"A true renegade or 'false prophet' like Velikovsky, is pretty well
barred from obtaining a position anywhere in the world.

"The same cannot be said of clergy and theologians. Hans Kung, e.g.,
was rejected by the Roman Catholics, but embraced by the protestants."

> "The one thing that Christians (OK, OK, Fundamentalists) have tried to do
> for the past two decades has been to lower the image of science down to
> the level of religion. Once science becomes ``just another religious
> belief'', then it loses its main line of defense.

"Except that, at a philosophical level, humanism is a 'religion'.

"This is a very subtle theological distinction that, unfortunately, most
people don't get."

> Creationism becomes ``just as reasonable'' as evolution.

"I suspect that's what we get for talking about the 'theory' of
evolution, when most folks are accustomed to the phrase 'theoretically
speaking'. In the general consciousness, 'theory' means imaginary,
rather than 'coherent explanation of observed phenomena, with
predicitons'."

> The attack on science is one of
> the WORST crimes committed in the name of Christianity, and it continues
> to this day."

"May I suggest that the primary cause of this 'attack' is in how
scientific findings are presented to the large number of people who have
no other contact with science? That they perceive that science is
attempting to undermine their value system and are retaliating?"

> "So... what's the difference, in your opinion, between Christians such as
> yourself, and philosophers?

"Not much!" <grin> "My B.A. included concentrations in mathematics and
religious studies/philosphy.

"But I *do* come from a background of being a person of faith and
approach most issues that way."

> However, in the case of ``Christianity'', the
> term has similarly shifted many, many times (and in many places)
> throughout history.

"I am not aware of such vast number of semantic shfits."

> Again, this is due to the fact that anyone with a
> loud enough voice can claim to ``speak for God'' -- and who can refute
> this?"

"Then *WHY* are you refuting with all your might?" <grin>

> "The loaded-ness is intentional. There is no difference between belief
> in Jesus and belief in Santa Claus. They are equally probable, with
> similar numbers of followers, and even share a birthday! But few
> grownups buy into the Santa Theory, even though they have very likely
> experienced more direct evidence for Santa Claus."

"Uhh, Santa wasn't *born* on Dec. 25--he just makes his trip then."
<grin>

"Actually, there are some *major* diferences, but most folks want to
think of Jesus *as* Santa Claus."

> "We have more and better evidence of Bigfoot, Nessie, and actual alien
> visitations than we'll EVER have for Jesus. The only thing that makes
> Jesus special is Public Relations (which single-handedly accounts for the
> story's longevity)."

"Actually, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is pretty solid. If
you're talking about the miraculous stuff, like the resurrection, then
you're right--the primary evidence we have is the Christian devotional
literature, namely the gospels and epistles."

> >"No argument there. The question, however, is 'What does the flood myth
> >mean?'. What is it saying about God? What does it say about the people
> >who told the story? Why was that story important to them?
>
> "If a global flood never happened, then the story says very little about
> God. Unless, of course, you agree with me that God, too, is a man-made
> construction. All it says about the people who told the story is that
> they either (A) once encountered a local flood and like to exaggerate, or
> (B) sometimes get confused between fiction and history. I'd say the
> latter is a large part of the explanation for the Bible and modern
> Fundamentalism..."

"Obviously, my friend, you have no understanding of the function of
myth.

"As one quick example, you could talk about the biblical theme of God
preserving a remnant, bringing the possibility for life out of the
near-certainty of death.

"There are several other motifs at work that are also important in the
flood narrative."

> "However, it's true that in a contest between a single eyewitness with no
> means of reproducing the phenomena, and long-held established scientific
> theory, they have little choice but to stand pat on what they KNOW."

"The same is true, Believe It Or Not, in theology and religion.

"That's one of the reasons why private spiritual experience, while
valued, is suspect, especially if it is at variance with the corporate
experience."

> What's more likely, that a story could be made up
> or exaggerated somehow, or that a heretofore undetected supernatural
> being chose to intercede in the affairs of a few primitive Egyptians and
> their slaves?"

"Although that is EXACTLY the point of the Exodus story: the God of
Abraham, et al, cares about the slaves.

"In most ancient cultures, religion tends to support and legitimize
those in power."

> "The fallacy of that last argument, of course, is that if EVERYONE throws
> away that ``one measurement aberration'', they might ALL be throwing away
> pieces to a much larger puzzle.

"Thank you for so eloquently restating my point."

> Once again, though, it is the POLICY of science to verify all findings.

"Intention vs. actual practice. Again.

"If you're going to criticize religion on what has happened rather than
what it intended to do, you have to do the same with science."

> >"OK, you show me where it says in the Christian (or the Hebrew)
> >scriptures that the planets must move in circles because the circle is
> >the only perfect figure.
>
> "*BEEP* Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. I never said anything of
> the sort. But the Christian scholars of the day DID say that, and they
> were for THEIR time what you claim to be for YOURS. An authority.

"Who's playing games?

"The notion of circular planetary orbits predates Christianity.

"Yet with centuries of observations on which to base an elliptical orbit
theory, the circles within circles of Ptolemy persisted. And although
it had nothing to do with biblical faith or Christianity, religous
arguments were used to supplement those of Pythagoras.

"But you seem to want to castigate Christianity for the failure of
scientists to fit the theory to the observations instead of the
observations to the theory."

> Without playing favoritism over which interpretation is ``right'', all I
> can say is the Bible lends itself to being interpreted however the
> interpretor CHOOSES. It's awfully unclear and obscure in its message,
> for a work inspired by a perfect being."

"Actually, that's part of the definition of scripture: it must be
sufficiently dense in meaning so that it can be interpreted afresh for
each generation in their new situation.

"If it doesn't continue to speak to the community of faith, it will be
discarded.

"Finally, it's not that unclear and obscure--most translations agree on
something like 97% of the text. The majority of the differences are
minor and don't change the sense of the original text. And considering
the high degree of correspondence between the Qumran scrolls and the
existing text, I'd say the tradition was well preserved."

> "Many if not all of Jesus' supposed teachings came from earlier sources
> as well. So did the notion of the virgin birth, of a god having a child
> through a human female, of ``signs and portents'' signalling such an
> event, and on and on. The whole Jesus story frankly sounds like
> second-rate plagiarism to me..."

"It should. Well, not the *whole* story. Matthew was so intent on
proving Jesus' qualifications to be Messiah that he used every trick of
the trade to impress the idea on his readers/listeners.

"Jesus certainly appears to have been influenced by both the Pharisees
and the Essenes. He clearly stands in the prophetic tradion of ancient
Israel (I'm talking about what he proclaimed being similar to what they
proclaimed.). And good ideas persist, no matter where they originated.

"And do remember that, in the ancient world, plagarism was not the crime
that we take it to be. Documents were frequently created in the name of
a famous person, or their words adapted freely."

> However, the official church position has at many times in
> the past amounted to ``if it contradicts the Bible, it's the ravings of
> a heretic who should be burned at the stake''. I'll dig up the
> references if I must, but I'm sure you don't deny this."

"Again, you're projecting backward. I don't deny the declarations of
heresy and anathemas--they go back to the very foundations of the
church. Only the "biblical" criterion, and that "burning at the stake"
was the punishment.

"Sometimes other methods were used." <grin>

> "Why do we never hear of ``scientific persecution''?

"Perhaps because scientists are more successful at it?" <grin>

> >"But are you showing a true picture, or are you perpetuating
> >stereotypes? Tread carefully--much hatred and bigotry in the world
> >comes from the persistence of inaccurate vision."
>
> "The picture I paint is as true enough. More true than the one they
> paint of science, and of nonbelievers. Christianity has earned any
> backlash it has coming from me."

"Assuming you've been using 'Christianity' consistently throughout, I
might actually agree with you as to the validity of your vituperance."

> >> Have you ever read or watched ``The Handmaid's Tale''?
> >> THAT is what I'm afraid of."
> >
> >"Watched it a few years ago. It chilled me thoroughly just because it
> >was a thoroughly plausible projection of the character of a
> >fundamentalist America."
>
> "PRECISELY. Now check out the Religious Right. Listen to Ralph Reed
> smile and slime and ooze. It's not as far off as we'd thought. The
> fundamentalists already have FAR too much political power in this
> country, and they're growing! I hate to sound alarmist, but I'm feeling
> mighty alarmed!"

"We ARE together here. You are absolutely right to be alarmed at the
growing political clout of the religious right.

"But, consider this: you need the mainline Christians as your allies.
They already agree with you on most of your issues, but if you continue
to alienate them with unfortuante word choice, you're pushing them right
into the arms of the religious right."

> "If it doesn't make the news, it's not a victory. Public opinion is
> swayed by what they SEE. What matters the battle, when the war is lost?"

"Good advice, eh?

"What does the public see from comments like the ones you've made here?
You and I have the luxury of an acquaintance in the Place, a mutual
admiration and respect, and the ability to DIALOG about our
differences."

> "My allies are being awfully damned quiet as well. If they think they're
> going to win this war QUIETLY, they'll well-intentionedly doom us all..."

"Maybe I've spent too many years on the 'net, but I'm worried about the
signal to noise ratio."

> >"No offense taken, and I hope none given on my part as well.
>
> "Nope. I can't even find a place where I COULD have taken offense;
> you've done much better in that respect than I have."

"You're very gracious, my friend."

> >"I've read Frazier's 'The Golden Bough' and am aware of the parallels
> >and outright assimilation that's gone on. But it seems to me that
> >you've just affirmed my basic argument--that not all of the things we
> >label as 'Christian' are indeed 'Christian'.
>
> "To THAT extent, *NONE* of what we call Christian is really that. Except
> maybe the witch-burnings." ;)

"You're incorrigible!" ;-)

> "Straighten me doc, 'cause I'm ready!" :)
>
> (Though as the new vice president of the Corvallis Secular Society, it
> occurs to me that I might oughta be a BIT less willing to listen to the
> other side!) ;)
>
> (That was a joke.)
>
> (Laugh already.)

"I am! See!" :D

> "For some people, the truth isn't as important as being comfortable.
> (Had I been you, I'd have probably done the same thing). Funny, though,
> that those are the sorts who lean towards religion the strongest..."

"One of the things I was taught in seminary is that I was being called
to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable'." <grin>

"The longer I'm in ministry, however, the fewer comfortable people I
find."

> P.S. These three lines were added just because I thought it would be
> amusing for the total number of lines in this post to equal 666. No
> other reason. Really. Hehehehehe.

"Oh you! You're an absolute BEAST!" <grin>

"I'll pay the tab for this round."

[A. Harvie]

Craig Helfgott wrote:
>
> I am quoting the entire post <snipped> because I am having the exact same problems

> as Unbeliever. I don't have attacks (perhaps because I am better at
> supressing my emotions), but I do have mini-attacks at least once or
> twice a week, where I think about the topic for five or ten minutes and
> wind up thoroughly depressing myself for the next two hours. I have been
> looking for things. I've posted to the magick groups, I've thought about
> various philosophies and religions. I *want* to believe. I can't. It's
> hard. You go on. You ignore it. You put it out of your mind. And then,
> for some reason, it hits you again. You're going to die. Everything you
> know is going to die, the Universe itself will end, and there will be no
> one, nothing left to remember. No sign that you ever existed. You would
> say it is the hallmark of an evil, sadistic, insane god, but without
> God, you don't even have anything to rage against, and its all futile. I
> hold on by the fact that I don't know everything. I don't know all of
> physics. If I live long enough, maybe we'll find a way out of entropy.
> That's how I hold on. That and my more immediate fear of death. I try
> not to think about it too much.
>
> Craig

Hi Craig,

Hope you don't mind a comment from a newcommer who hasn't even made a toast to
formally introduce himself yet, but...

I can relate to what you're saying. Have been in much the same place myself, and
bounced back and forth between being a believer and non- for many years. I've
settled firmly info place as a non- now. As for your concerns relating to the
futility of it all, I don't think that there is any specific advice one can give as
to "just do/believe this and it will all be alright" I do, however, think that
there is one piece of general advice that may fit: Don't try not to think about it.
If something is causing you concern or worry, then it needs to be confronted. I
suspect that was what was meant in one of the earlier posts by:

> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Leslie wrote:
>
> > Having made friends with death some fifteen or so years ago, Leslie
> > listens to Unbe and Kestrel with increasing worry and concern.

>(please correct me if I mis-intrepreted you Leslie)

I've found for myself that my fears only go away when I confront them, accept them
as real, find the source and examine it. As for the fear of death, I've stopped
worrying about it - There's too much living to do in the meantime and I can't afford
time for things that I can't change.

Hope you find some peace.

-- Andrew

[Marc C Allain]

In article <> bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) writes:
>In article <570qpe$7...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>In article <56tq7r$s...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>>1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
>>> protecting mankind.
>>

Unknown.

>
>>>2) There is no such thing, really, as death.
>>

Physical death, certainly. "Life" after death is unknown.

>
>>>3) There is some purpose to the universe.
>>

If the universe was created by a being of some sort then it
follows that it was created or some reason and purpose. It
is not yet established that the universe was created by any
being. (See question 1.)

>>>4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
>>> for nothing.
>>

Something for nothing violates natural law. As the question
is stated, the answer is, no.

>>>5) You are better than the next fellow.
>>

Depends on how you define 'better' and who the next fellow is.
Because of my religion? No.

>>>6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.
>>

Well, this may be true if the universe is completely mechanistic,
but for various reasons, the answer is treated as false.

>>>"I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many of these is
>>>addressed by his or her PARTICULAR religion, and to decide how much he or
>>>she can REALLY trust in a religion that is so... well crafted... as to
>>>answer so many of Mankind's psychological needs so well..."

Actually, I recently realized that, in some ways, my silly, fictional
religion of the First Church of Mad Scientist can be treated as a sort
of metaphor for what I 'think' the universe may be like.

That is, in the fiction, the universe is a role-playing game.
In my personal opinion and loosely held belief, the universe is a
sort of model or simulation existing wholly within the mind of God.

In the fiction, our purpose is to play-test reality.
In my belief, our purpose is to learn as much as we can, to experience
as much as we can.

In the fiction, people are just player characters.
In my belief, we are either projections/extensions of some sort of
cosmic 'persons,' or extensions of God.

Sort of scared me to notice the parallels at first, but what the hey?

As for great revalations, here's my latest.

Creation is an ongoing process.
(This may explain pretty much everything from the problems of pain and
evil to why we had to re-elect Clinton to save ourselves from Dole.)

and:

A corollary to Clarke's law:
The actions (miracles) of a truly advanced God should be indistinguishable
from natural events.

--
If you need me, I'll be down in the lab, mixing metaphors
Patchmaker Marc C. Allain m...@christa.unh.edu
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca

[Leslie]

On 24 Nov 1996 09:13:58 GMT in alt.callahans,
him. <Ars...@cris.com> said:
+
+ Big Al. Carl would be spinning in his grave if we were discussing
+ anything else.

<knee-jerk reaction>
"Actually, not that it matters, which it doesn't, really, but StM
said he was *ESPECIALLY* [his emphasis] likely to slice and dice a
flawed arugment in support of a conclusion he *agreed* with, even
more than in support of a conclusion he disagreed with. He hated
to see people reach a right conclusion by the wrong means."
</knee-jerk reaction>

Leslie. And a polite insult is still an insult.
--
** Find the alt.callahans FAQs here ---> http://www.io.org/~deirdre/ **
* "Why -admit- it?" "Because it's -true-. Because we're here to get *
* telepathic, and we can't have telepathy based on bullshit." *
**** If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane -- Jimmy Buffett ****

[Leslie]

On 23 Nov 1996 23:33:58 GMT in alt.callahans,
Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> said:
+ The Bible tells
+ women to shut up and obey their husbands.

"Not quite," Leslie puts in suddenly. "You left off the other half of
that biblical injunction, which is: `and the husband shall love his wife
as Christ loved the church, sacrificing himself for it.' (Ephesians
5:22-33. Also see I Corinthians 7:1-5.) If a husband is obeying *his*
rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
toward God first, and towards the marriage second?

"Perhaps you ought to study the Bible a little more yourself, Unbe. How
many other misconceptions about the Bible do you suppose you have -- ?"

+ Women STILL can't be priests
+ in many of the flavors of Christianity."

".....and your point is?

"Did you know that a whole whole lot of the Epistles were written
expressly because some branches of the early Church -- *during the
lifetimes of the original Apostles* -- were getting off-track from
what Jesus had taught? The concept that `people have screwed around
with the tenets of Christianity' goes back to the very BEGINNING
of the faith, Unbe! Read Revelations, and the warnings to the seven
churches, etc. Read all the *repeated* warnings against false
prophets, and those who would corrupt the Word for their own gain."

Leslie. "And many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of
which the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." 2 Pet. 2:2.
And you thought your fears were original, Unbe....
(Apologies to *our* Pernicious!)

[Anne Gwin]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.961122124111.20693D-100000@kira>, Reed Byers
<bye...@PEAK.ORG> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Anne Gwin wrote:
>
> > > The Unbeliever looks stern. "Sure, the church ``kept knowledge alive'',
> > > if by that you mean it kept knowledge firmly suppressed and buried for as
> > > long as it possibly could, while it thrived on the resulting
ignorance and
> > > superstition to keep it's hold on power secure. It only released it's
> > > stranglehold on knowledge when times changed and it had no choice; it
> > > deserves no credit for the act."
>

> > Galileo's problems occurred during the Italian Renaissance, I
> > think, or as near as dammit, when the Church was _losing_ its hold.
>
> The Unbeliever can be heard muttering, "...which is probably the only
> reason he got away with his ``heresy'' as long as he did."
>
>

Unbe, I think I didn't make myself clear. The point of my reply was that
it gets my goat when people call the Middle Ages "dark." They weren't. The
Church was not the only influence on people's lives!

>
> > I'm not arguing about the Church's decadence, Unbe, just that you're
imputing
> > to the whole of Western Europe a particular mindset, a monolithic state of
> > things, that just wasn't there.
>
> "I do not, CANNOT make any claims for the whole of Western Europe, of ANY
> time period. I don't have the raw knowledge. And I know that ANY
> sweeping generalization is bound to be wrought with exception and
> counter-exception. So to the extent that I am overreaching my bounds, I
> humbly apologize."
>
> "I *DO* know, however, that this was a period of time in which the
> Church radically expanded its powerbase and did so on the backs of
> the poor and the ignorant. One way in which it did this was by
> intentionally KEEPING them ignorant, and dependent. Filled with
> superstitious fear of the horrors that awaited anyone who defied the

<snip: etc., etc.>

>
> Unbe pauses to take a breath.

And Anne jumps in...."Please go read some good medieval history, Unbe. Amy
Kelly's book _Eleanor and the Four Kings_ is good, as is Linda Paterson's
_The World of the Troubadours_. Yes, the Church did bad things. Show me a
human institution that hasn't, OK?"

> "I know that the advances of the Renaissance came when the power of
> the church was DIMINISHED, not when it was in it's full glory.
> Coincidence? Methinks not."

Methinks you'll see what you want to see, Unbe.

> "I've never claimed that Christians have done no good. I've merely
> claimed that in my opinion, the bad outweighs the good. Rather like my
> opinion of StM, come to think of it, and you know how far I got with any
> negative statements concerning HIM..."

Bad: Lots of dead people; lots of people with narrow minds. But how can
you be sure they wouldn't have absorbed whatever dogma was given them?
Look at what Mohammed actually quoted God as saying, and then compare that
with the current crop of terrorists.

Good: Lots of people who didn't hurt other people, many more than were
killed by the Church; cathedrals (ever been to Beauvais? or the
Sainte-Chappelle?); the Lindisfarne Gospels; the Vestments of the Toison
d'Or; the songs of Marcabru, though I suppose you'd call him "just another
Christian moralizer"; countless works of art that would be less
interesting without their biblical references (Shakespeare, for one);
shall I continue?

--
Machine shared by Anne Gwin (ag...@mail.utexas.edu) and Nyarlathotep (nyarla...@mail.utexas.edu). Sometimes we forget to change the name on the post.

"ZOG!!"--The Brady Bunch Tiki

"Where do you want to go today?"--Micro$oft Explorer
"Never ask that question..."--Kosh

[Meredith L. Giberson]

In article <329851...@princeton.edu>, Craig Helfgott
<helf...@princeton.edu> wrote:

~*I am quoting the entire post because I am having the exact same problems
~*as Unbeliever. I don't have attacks (perhaps because I am better at
~*supressing my emotions), but I do have mini-attacks at least once or
~*twice a week, where I think about the topic for five or ten minutes and
~*wind up thoroughly depressing myself for the next two hours. I have been
~*looking for things. I've posted to the magick groups, I've thought about
~*various philosophies and religions. I *want* to believe. I can't. It's
~*hard. You go on. You ignore it. You put it out of your mind. And then,
~*for some reason, it hits you again. You're going to die. Everything you
~*know is going to die, the Universe itself will end, and there will be no
~*one, nothing left to remember. No sign that you ever existed. You would
~*say it is the hallmark of an evil, sadistic, insane god, but without
~*God, you don't even have anything to rage against, and its all futile. I
~*hold on by the fact that I don't know everything. I don't know all of
~*physics. If I live long enough, maybe we'll find a way out of entropy.
~*That's how I hold on. That and my more immediate fear of death. I try
~*not to think about it too much.

Craig,

Just wanted you to know that you're not by yourself. Unbe and I are
involved in an on-going email discussion about it. I'm in the "still
looking" category, where as Unbe is in the "looked enough" category. =)
This discussion was sparked by a post of mine that it looks like you could
have written yourself.

Right now, I'm staying out of the discussion; I've been successfully not
thinking about it for a week or so now, and I don't want to blow it and get
all depressed again. Some have misunderstood the severity/frequency of the
"attacks" Unbe and I talked about, I think. There's nothing neurotic about
them, and I don't think I need a shrink. Periodically, I get really
depressed over the thought that my own existence is very possibly going to
be wiped out in about three score and ten (I'm optimistic about my
life-expectancy). It makes it hard to think about much of anything else
for a day or so, and then I'm over it. I still go to work, still smile and
talk to people, still surf the web. In fact, I tend to do a bit MORE of
those things during the "down" times. Unbe and I have started to call it
"the Spiral" *grin*. I still FUNCTION. I just have to be extra careful to
keep my mind occupied. I watch a little more TV and keep three books at
hand instead of the usual two... that kind of thing. And I search my life
for meaning, and I search the universe for some sign that this short,
bright spark isn't all there is. So far, I'm still looking.

Take care,
Kestrel

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----+
"We are not Human beings having Spiritual experiences; we are Spiritual
beings having Human experiences!" --Anon.

[him.]

In article <57d3d0$g...@zot.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zot.io.org> wrote:
>On 24 Nov 1996 09:13:58 GMT in alt.callahans,
>him. <Ars...@cris.com> said:
>+ Big Al. Carl would be spinning in his grave if we were discussing
>+ anything else.

>"Actually, not that it matters, which it doesn't, really, but StM
>said he was *ESPECIALLY* [his emphasis] likely to slice and dice a
>flawed arugment in support of a conclusion he *agreed* with, even
>more than in support of a conclusion he disagreed with. He hated
>to see people reach a right conclusion by the wrong means."

"I ain't real fond of it myself," Al admits, "But I've got a sneakin'
hunch he would not have found unbe's methods wrong, having watched this
very conversation happen with him."

Big Al. Itosu caught it in the last incarnation, as I recall.

[Shonias]

In article <5759p1$9...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:

>In article <570qpe$7...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:

>>Shonias is intrigued by this list of points, and always one to fill
>>in the quiz...
>>

>>In article <56tq7r$s...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>>1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
>>> protecting mankind.
>>

>>Sort of... but not exactly, and not so much protect as... be a part of
>>or something.
>
>Unbe smiles. "Protect."

No, I get no protection, there is no "will" to this force.

>He gets out a little notepad and writes down "1) Yes."

I dispute that.

>>>2) There is no such thing, really, as death.
>>

>>Again sort of, wwell actually, yes.
>
>"Thank you. 2) Yes."

Fair enough.

>>>3) There is some purpose to the universe.
>>

>>Apart from to exist? No.

>>What other purpose do you need? :)
>
>"Your religion doesn't involve an afterlife? Doesn't imply that the
>universe is God's Special Creation, or that there are any punishments or
>rewards for Earthly behavior hereafter? If any of this is true, then
>there IS a purpose to your universe."

No. No. So no.

>"3) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

Nope, you'll really have to scrap that one.

>>>4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
>>> for nothing.
>>

>>No, definitely not.
>
>"No prayer? Praying is merely a way for an individual to try and effect
>things he otherwise couldn't, and it costs nothing. No Old Testament?
>Moses had quite a few tricks up his sleeve as I recall..."
>
>"4) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

No Old Testament for a start, you jumped the rather rash conclusion that
my faith has anything whatever to do with Christianity. It doesn't.
An no, no prayer, nothing that gives me anything I don't have to pay for
in some way.

>>>5) You are better than the next fellow.
>>

>>No.
>
>"You're not going to heaven? You're not specially ``saved''? You aren't
>one of the Chosen People, the ones God hand-picked as his special ones?"
>
>"5) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

Absolutely not. I don't believe in heaven and I am just another body.
I don't even have a meaning for "saved".

>>>6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.
>>

>>No.
>
>"No devils, demons, witches, evil spirits? No heathens to point to?
>Scapegoats to blame?"

:) Now that really *is* funny. I'm the heathen, so if I'm blaming them...
Nope, none of that, not even close.

>"6) Provisional YES until such time as Shonias repeats her assertion."

I didn't make these assertions lightly, I did know what I was talking
about.

>>That was fun, apparently my religion was invented to fend off fears of
>>death but not much else, fair enough, I find it useful and I don't
>>think it does any "good" or "evil" really, it's too.... individual
>>or something. Hmmmm, where does that leave it?
>

>"If my assumptions about your religion are true (which they may very
>easily not be; every religion's got its own take on things), then I'm
>counting 6 out of 6. If not, then I humbly beg your forgiveness for
>my rudeness in assuming something untrue about your belief system."

You did make some drastic assumptions, but take another look without
them, because I'd like to see what you think about it without those
assumptions. Forgiveness is unnecessary, there's nothing to forgive,
no hurt done.

>>Can I buy you one of my special calorie free drinks? All the yummy
>>fatty stuff, but not an absorbed calorie in sight! :)
>
>"Don'tcha love virtual drinks?"

"Oh I do indeed. Mike, one of those yummy creamy good things with no
calories for Unbe here."
A dollar is tossed on the bar.

>"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"

My own take on Wicca, does that change your assumptions at all?

Shonias

--
****************************
They had sex in Pennsylvania
A Brazilian grew a tree
A doctor in Manhattan
Saved a dying man for free
It's a miracle.
****************************

[Unbeliever]

In article <5793km$2...@herald.concentric.net>, him. <Ars...@cris.com> wrote:

>>"If my assumptions about your religion are true (which they may very
>>easily not be; every religion's got its own take on things), then I'm
>>counting 6 out of 6. If not, then I humbly beg your forgiveness for
>>my rudeness in assuming something untrue about your belief system."
>

>"Grrr." Al emotes. "Unbe, there's a point I want to get across here:
>Until you have Evidence one way or another you CANNOT assume, ESPECIALLY
>when one has a statistical sample as horrendous as yours is."
>
>"Now," He says, "I want you to carve this backwards on the business end
>of a hammer and bash yourself on the head with it until the point gets
>through your skull. Okay?"

The Unbeliever hangs his head. "Oy. You know guys, I *DID* *REALLY* try
to make sure this one wouldn't hurt feelings. I went out of my way to
mention that I was making assumptions that could very well be pointless.
I assumed some form of Judea-Christianity was the topic, phrased my
points as questions (are you sure your religion doesn't have ``X''?), and
then phrased my versions of the answers as ``provisional until the
assertion is repeated'', at which point I would accept the opposing
viewpoint since the person HOLDING the belief must be considered the
higher expert ON that belief."

"Since this IS a sensitive topic, I suppose I could have phrased it even
more cautiously. I hereby apologize to Shonias and to anyone else who
took offense at that post. I only intended to show the different way I
believed we were interpreting the six security beliefs, and to reinforce
my own claim that Judeau-Christianity fulfills all six beautifully."

"I'm VERY close to giving up the topic entirely, seeing as how not a
single humanist has come out of the woodwork to support me, and all I'm
doing is getting folks upset."

>>"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"
>

>"Criminy." Al says.
>
>Big Al. Carl would be spinning in his grave if we were discussing anything
>else.

"That last line was called humor. And an honest admission (at least the
second in that post) that I was making an assumption concerning the
Judeau-Christian nature of the religion in question."

Unbe sighs again.

"Fine, I'll just go shoot myself over here in the corner. Don't mind me..."

Be True...
-=*> Unbeliever <*=-

EMAIL: bye...@peak.org
WEB: http://www.peak.org/~byersr

Maybe I'll shoot myself in the head to
obliterate the words left by Al's hammer...

[barbara trumpinski]

unbe:

>>>"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"
>>
>>"Criminy." Al says.
>>
>>Big Al. Carl would be spinning in his grave if we were discussing anything
>>else.

>"That last line was called humor. And an honest admission (at least the
>second in that post) that I was making an assumption concerning the
>Judeau-Christian nature of the religion in question."

>Unbe sighs again.

>"Fine, I'll just go shoot myself over here in the corner. Don't mind me..."

kitten stifles a giggle...."don't shoot yourself NOW, unbe....folks
might think you were making a sacrifice for thanksgiving dinner. and
i don't think you're kosher."

--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu barbara trumpinski
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} "i will outline up to the event horizon" l.m.bujold
~

[Michael Holmes]

[The purple guy has been delaying entrance into this conversation,
mostly because he didn't feel he had the time necessary to really
absorb the discussion, give it the attention it deserved. When
he finally starts listening, it isn't quite the conversation he
expected, and he's shocked to find Kestrel and Unbe describing
feelings of 'mortality-panic' -- something he has been very
familiar with in his life. He's more than a little surprised
to hear echoes of an *intensity* that he thought only he
experienced.]

Unbeliever (bye...@ucs.orst.edu) wrote:

: In article <mgiberson-ya023180...@news.genmagic.com>,
: Meredith L. Giberson <mgib...@genmagic.com> wrote:

[...]
: >"Here is the heart of my dilemma. I am terrified of death. Not of the
: >physical pain that might be involved, but of the thought that death might
: >be final. No tunnel, no light, no misty terrain...no me. No "Meredith" to
: >experience things. Just...nothing.

/* takes a deep breath, lets it out slowly. He remembers a time when
he had feelings like that, fairly frequently. Out of the blue,
he'd be in the middle of reading, or cleaning, or doing some
mundane activity -- and for no apparent reason, he'd be struck
by the thought that _one day it would all end_ for him. A feeling
like icy hands gripping his chest, he'd be unable to continue the
activity, and would just want to curl up in a ball, do anything to
stop thinking about the fact that he would die some day.

Even now, the recollection of those feelings is unpleasant. Full
of dread.

: The Unbeliever looks very uneasy, but tries to forge ahead anyway.

: "I want you to believe that I know *EXACTLY* what you're talking about.
: I have the same... condition. Phobia. Fear. Call it what you will.
: It's not the ordinary ``afraid of death'' thing that most folks have.
: It's a hyper-extended version of that. The finality. The end of
: consciousness. The end of the universe, as far as *I* am concerned. The
: universe moving on without me. The realization that time was going on a
: long time before I showed up, and I WASN'T THERE TO NOTICE IT, and that
: that's how it's going to be again someday."

"I always felt like I was a little too morbid, to have such thoughts.
It amazed me that, even as I was having a relatively *good* period
of time, happy, successful -- I could still be struck by such 'panics'.
In fact, it may have made it worse -- to be having such *fun* and
*happiness* and then realize it was fleeting, that someday there would
be no more 'me' to experience it."

"For me, I think it started early in high school. I remember clearly
that, in spite of having friends throw me a surprise party for my
16th birthday, it was an incredibly 'dread-full' period for me. I
repeatedly had thoughts about my 'your life will end' phobia."

"It was mainly because '16' was a landmark. And, it seemed to me,
that life was already accelerating then. I used to say 'well,
next we'll graduate high school, then college, then we'll have
careers, get married, have kids, retire, and die. It's all downhill
from here'."

/* laughs, but there's a feeble edge to it, and it fades into silence.

"I really, seriously thought that the best parts of life were almost
over, that we were all rushing headlong into the arms of oblivion.
And it scared me. I wanted every good moment to stretch forever,
because I literally thought that each event that ended was one
step closer to the end for me."

"How strange to be in your teens and twenties and to be regularly
struck by thoughts like that."

[...]

: "This has been a curse of mine for a very long time; it probably started
: when I was 12 or so. I can't think about that subject for very long,
: before I have what can only be described as a panic attack. I freak, get
: very cold, crumble in on myself. The *ONLY* way I can cope, to this day,
: is to catch myself as I start the downward spiral and FORCE myself to
: think about something else. Usually, I concentrate on the disgust I feel
: for reacting so desperately to something that is totally out of my
: control. (I've had to do this a couple of times just while responding to
: your post). I can't change the fact that humans die. I can't change
: whatever DOES happen when you die. However it works, it works, and it
: doesn't need my permission. So I force myself not to think about it.
: Death will happen when it happens, and why make LIFE miserable worrying
: about the inevitable?"

"Unbe -- my god, it's so strange to hear a description of that feeling
coming from someone else's mouth."

"But... what you are saying, about not being able to change it. That,
for me, was the start of dealing with it. All sorts of other things
helped me -- I think most of my adult life has been a search for
experiences, learning, absorbing -- and this kind of panic *doesn't*
happen to me anymore. Hasn't for at least three, maybe four years.
Perhaps more. This isn't to say that 'faint echoes' of the feeling
don't occasionally occur -- but it's more like a memory of a feeling
than a real feeling."

/* shakes his head. "I can't say what turned the corner for me -- and
I wish I could. Buddhism, Taoism, Lifespring, Humanism -- talks
with family and friends -- reading and thinking and *doing* things on
my own -- all of these probably helped in some way. Small pieces
of a puzzle that I eventually put together without really knowing
*how* I did it. But... it can be done. Maybe that alone can help."

: "No version of an afterlife story gives me any comfort, mostly because
: there's NO WAY TO KNOW for certain. I am a rationalist, a scientist (at
: heart), and a secular humanist. [...]

The purple man smiles. "I agree -- in many ways our beliefs about
belief seem to be quite similar. Which is why I try to be careful
in talking about what I 'got' out of eastern religion and philosophy,
that I couldn't 'find' in western religion and philosophy. It's not
'supernatural' and it is something that I try to 'test' against my
experiences in real life."

"Part of it *is* in accepting reality as I find it -- I exist, and
someday I won't exist. I can't change the fact that someday this
change will occur. Life *is* change, though -- a central tenet
of Buddhism that I have found endlessly liberating and always
a source of new understanding and help. Change always bring some
uncertainty, some risk, and some 'pain'. Fear of change is another
source of suffering and pain in life. Because we get so 'attached'
to what we have, we don't want to 'let it go' whenever something
changes."

"For me, that was part of where my 'death-panic' came from. I
was so attached to 'my life at the moment' that I was actually
enjoying it *less* (due to the panics) because of fear of losing it."

"Another part that I know helped was in spending less time worrying
about the future (my eventual absence from the world) and spending
more time *in the moment*. 'Now' is really the only place that
we really 'live'. If we spend too much time reminiscing about the
past, or planning or worrying about the future, we *miss* the now."

"How many times have people talked about a 'day flying by' or
'not even noticing where the time went' -- many times, that's
because they weren't focused on living in the moment. Losing
time like that is a little like dying, too -- you don't get
that back, and worrying about it doesn't bring it back."

"The more I learned how to focus on living 'in the moment', the
less I found myself experiencing these attacks of panic. And
when I forget to live in the now, that's when I'm most likely
to rekindle those 'echoes' of that feeling

"Sometimes I have a different-but-related kind of 'panic' --
which for me has to do with 'not accomplishing enough with my life',
a kind of worry that used to go hand in hand with my fear of dying.
Nowadays *that* fear tends to crop up solo."

/* smiles a little bashfully. "Hey, I never said I had this *all*
down. I'm _very_ human, and still have several things to work
on. Heck, that's what life is about, too!"

[...]
: "So... the advice I offer is, don't kill off your rational side just
: because your irrational side has a phobia. Believe in what you know to
: be TRUTH, and don't let yourself think about what happens ``after''. For
: all their big talk, NO religious person has any more HARD EVIDENCE than
: you have for God, or life after death. The actual PROOF simply isn't
: there. People can act very sure of themselves and their religions...
: but there's ALWAYS someone else who's EQUALLY ``sure'' that HIS religion
: is right, and it will contradict the first person's religion in every
: way. They can't ALL be right, and without scientific backing to their
: claims, I simply cannot choose one of them and ``hope''. That way lies
: madness."

The purple man nods, slowly. "That's kind of why I tried to strip
it down to basics, and always come back to: 'I exist, and someday I will
not exist.' -- something that can either be terrifying or comforting. In
a way, it makes 'existence' a gift of sorts -- I mean, hey, I might
*never* have existed at all, so the fact that I exist, even temporarily,
is a plus! An opportunity, a chance, an experience, that didn't
*have* to occur, but did."

"The fact that the final curtain _must_ come down on the play makes
it no less a wonderful experience."

--
/* -> Mike Holmes, Happiness Patrol // Happiness Will Prevail! \\
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Few things are needful to make the wise man happy, but nothing
satisfies the fool; and this is the reason why so many of mankind
are miserable." -- Duc Francois de La Rochefoucauld

[Anne Gwin]

In article <57deu0$m...@news.orst.edu>, bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) wrote:

> "I'm VERY close to giving up the topic entirely, seeing as how not a
> single humanist has come out of the woodwork to support me, and all I'm
> doing is getting folks upset."

I'm sort of a "Christian humanist," as opposed to a "secular" humanist.
The proportions of Xian and humanist vary according to my moods.

I usually avoid religious discussions because I know I'm going to get
upset. It was just dumb luck that I happened into your "Dark Ages" post. I
probably should have remembered that this is the Place...and I think I'd
enjoy discussing religion with our new lady preacher. ;-) But...my
contribution (OK, I'll admit, it was nitpicky) wasn't met with what I'd
call an open mind, Unbe, even after you apologized for the generalizations
you made. I do know what it's like to be a lone voice crying in the
wilderness, and it's probably my end-of-semester misery making me feel
this way, but I'm just too damn tired to argue in support of somebody who
doesn't seem to be listening to me.

Anne

[Jim M. Pierce]

Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>"I'm VERY close to giving up the topic entirely, seeing as how not a
>single humanist has come out of the woodwork to support me, and all I'm
>doing is getting folks upset."

I didn't say anything because I mostly agree with you.

Well, I am not a humanist... I don't know for certain. But Christians
have indeed killed more people in the name of God than has been killed
for any other reason. Upset at your truthfulness ? Or upset because they
wont accept the pogroms, etc. done in God's name ?

The refusal to accept the bad with the good is one of the
_major_ reasons I no longer feel I am a Christian.

I was taught to accept responsibility for my actions by my parents.
And it was mentioned in Church and in Sunday School. Too bad the
Christian Religion cannot live up to those same requirements.

>"Fine, I'll just go shoot myself over here in the corner. Don't mind me..."

Don't do that. I found more bigotry and prejudice in Christianity
than out of it... Another big reason I left.

I have never been able to understand why Christians take the attitude
that the pogroms, etc. were done by 'not real' Christians. I used to
feel that way, no more. Some of it was done by the sanction of the
then Pope. There couldn't be any more real reason than a ruling by
the then Pope. To disagree with the Pope back then meant execution
for heresy. Spain now has 'proof' that the Spanish Inquisition was
no where near as bad as the rest of Europe claims it was. Yeah right.
And if I want truthful info about the Manson Family I'll go interview
Charlie Manson. Yeah right.

To be factual, more Jews in Europe were executed by Christians, than
Muslims killed in the Holy Land during the Crusades. I mean, the
Crusades were claimed to be for the purpose of getting the Muslims
out of Jerusalem. They didn't do that. Some of the cities raped and
pillaged in the Holy Land were mostly Coptic Christians. But that
was okay by the Pope then, as they were not members of The Church.
Yeah right. The Muslims back then didn't care what religion you
practiced. The Christians of that day and time _required_ that
everyone practice Christianity as designated by the Pope. The
Christians back then practiced intolerance, and claimed Muslims were
the intolerant ones. Yeah right.

I have yet to hear, and not just in here, a _credible_ reason for the
Pope and others killing Christians in Europe. The Huegenots for
instance. The 100 Years War was between Christians.

When Unbe stated that the Rennasance happening at all was when the
power of the Church was lessening, that is true. If it had happened
earlier, they would have been burned at the stake. Or some similar
Christian method for dealing with those who disagree with Christian
Dictates.

And yes, I _do believe_ that the 700 Club and the Christian Coalition
are doing their Christian Best to set up a Religious Dictatorship.
While they are in the minority, they are loud, and they have a plan.

DJ.

--
Jim Pierce jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
Video: Tom Waits 'Downtown train'

[Michael Holmes]

Laura Rey (Rev...@aol.com) wrote:

[...]

/*, purple man, takes a moment to wave a quick greeting to a newcomer
he's been meaning to welcome, but instead has simply been enjoying
her contributions without comment.

: Having said that, Laura hears a voice in her head reminding her that she
: is not in church and should quit preaching. "Sorry 'bout that....but
: theology and people are truly where my passion lies. When they come
: together in conscious ways, I get sort of excited."

: Joe looks at her and barks twice. Laura looks around and then see the
: chalkboard at the end of the room in the corner. "Do I have to?" Joe
: barks again. "Oh, okay. Excuse me folks while I go write "I will not
: preach in Callahan's 25 times."

/*'s soft but warm laugh carries over to Laura's table. "I really
don't think of what you were doing as *preaching*, Laura, and I
have very much appreciated your comments and your attitude."

"I'm someone who has had some bad experiences with 'preachy'
people, and my departure from Christianity was not without it's
negative moments -- so believe me, if you were making me uncomfortable,
or being too 'preachy', I'd let you know!"

"Religion, or personal philosophy, is a large part of life, for
many people. It's hard not to talk about it, sometimes. And
*I* am always interested in hearing people talk about their
own religious beliefs and experiences, if it's not done as
an 'attack' or a 'conversion attempt'. And I haven't seen
any evidence that that's what you do, Laura."

"I just want to make sure that you feel as comfortable as anyone
else here, free to talk about yourself and what's important to you --
even if that includes discussion of a religious nature."

[Laura Rey]

Michael Holmes wrote:
> /*, purple man, takes a moment to wave a quick greeting to a newcomer
> he's been meaning to welcome, but instead has simply been enjoying
> her contributions without comment.

Thanks /* !
>
> /*'s soft but warm laugh carries over to Laura's table. (snip)

> "I just want to make sure that you feel as comfortable as anyone
> else here, free to talk about yourself and what's important to you --
> even if that includes discussion of a religious nature."

Thanks. I probably will jump into a religious thread
eventually, but right now its too much like work. While
I don't mind people asking me questions, as several of you
have, I prefer to flit around ....excuse me, that was
flirt around, share some excellent company, and talk about
something else besides religion. One of the caveats of my
job/vocation is that I appear appropriately proper at all
times....it is a *joy* to come here and act out a little.
And, but the way, thanks to all of you who have been helping
me *act* out. ;)

Laura
--
Also known as the Reverend Laura Rey, and *that lady preacher....*

My newsfeed is being really flakey so please cc: me at my email address
if you want to make sure I get it. Thanks.

[dreiss]

Every once in a while, if I'm getting too arrogant or
unfocused...there is a little rant that I repeat over and
over to myself. It goes something like this:

There is no god.
There is no soul.
There is no magic.
When you die, you cease to be.

Within a century or two,
there will be no one alive who remembers your name.
And every single accomplishment you'll ever complete
Will be irrelevent or forgotten.

The only thing that makes you
more then the sum of your molecules
Is a personal connection to your society
And through that, to your race.

Even that is fleeting.
All of humanity is irrelevent.
If the entire earth ceased to be,
the universe would not notice its absence.

Live for the moment, because it is all you have.

-- Jareth

[him.]

In article <57deu0$m...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <5793km$2...@herald.concentric.net>, him. <Ars...@cris.com> wrote:
>>"Grrr." Al emotes. "Unbe, there's a point I want to get across here:
>>Until you have Evidence one way or another you CANNOT assume, ESPECIALLY
>>when one has a statistical sample as horrendous as yours is."

>The Unbeliever hangs his head. "Oy. You know guys, I *DID* *REALLY* try
>to make sure this one wouldn't hurt feelings.

Al ponders this. "Hurt? No. Irked, yes."

> I went out of my way to
>mention that I was making assumptions that could very well be pointless.
>I assumed some form of Judea-Christianity was the topic, phrased my
>points as questions (are you sure your religion doesn't have ``X''?), and
>then phrased my versions of the answers as ``provisional until the
>assertion is repeated'', at which point I would accept the opposing
>viewpoint since the person HOLDING the belief must be considered the
>higher expert ON that belief."

"Okay," Al says, "For starters, why didn't you assume that they were
right about their beliefs the FIRST time around, and THEN ask them
if (say) they felt that prayer would be all they needed to do to get
what they wanted?"

>"Since this IS a sensitive topic, I suppose I could have phrased it even
>more cautiously. I hereby apologize to Shonias and to anyone else who
>took offense at that post. I only intended to show the different way I
>believed we were interpreting the six security beliefs, and to reinforce
>my own claim that Judeau-Christianity fulfills all six beautifully."

"Unbe, Judeau(how the hell DO you spell that?)-Christianity CAN fulfill
all six beautifully, and that's one of the reasons why you won't see me
joining a congregation any time soon. However, it also CAN include
such diversities as Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu and the I-thou
relationship. One of my points is that if you're going to see, see ALL."

Big Al. And if you're going to preach science, Practice it...

[him.]

In article <57diqr$i...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>On 23 Nov 1996 23:33:58 GMT in alt.callahans,
>Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> said:
>+ The Bible tells
>+ women to shut up and obey their husbands.
>"Not quite," Leslie puts in suddenly. "You left off the other half of
>that biblical injunction, which is: `and the husband shall love his wife
>as Christ loved the church, sacrificing himself for it.' (Ephesians
>5:22-33. Also see I Corinthians 7:1-5.) If a husband is obeying *his*
>rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
>wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
>toward God first, and towards the marriage second?

"Well, dear, this world is so corrupt with devils, you won't last five
more minutes without being corrupted and sent to hell. So I'm going to
Kill you now."

"Okay, dear. Don't forget to turn yourself in."

"I won't."

There. He loves his wife so much he would rather see her destroyed than
risk her soul, and he sacrifices himself (to the justice system) to save
her.

And if it hit the papers it would be Scandal of the Year, at least.

I, personally, ALWAYS get nervous whenever something says you must obey
without question. Sometimes I notice things the person giving the orders
doesn't y'know.

Big Al. "Please question me." -- Eric Stroheim.

[Unbeliever]

In article <57diqr$i...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:

>"Not quite," Leslie puts in suddenly. "You left off the other half of
>that biblical injunction, which is: `and the husband shall love his wife
>as Christ loved the church, sacrificing himself for it.' (Ephesians
>5:22-33. Also see I Corinthians 7:1-5.) If a husband is obeying *his*
>rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
>wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
>toward God first, and towards the marriage second?

The Unbeliever stands in shock, and slowly shakes his head. If he didn't
know better, he'd think that Leslie was saying that if the man is good
enough, the woman should be happy not having a say in anything. SURELY
Leslie didn't say that?

>"Perhaps you ought to study the Bible a little more yourself, Unbe. How
>many other misconceptions about the Bible do you suppose you have -- ?"

Since he doesn't count that last as a misconception, he hasn't found his
first one (concerning the Bible) yet...

>+ Women STILL can't be priests
>+ in many of the flavors of Christianity."
>
>".....and your point is?

*NOW* Unbe lets his jaw drop. The next thing you know, Leslie will be
announcing that she subscribes to the barefoot-and-pregnant theory on
the role of women...

>"Did you know that a whole whole lot of the Epistles were written
>expressly because some branches of the early Church -- *during the
>lifetimes of the original Apostles* -- were getting off-track from
>what Jesus had taught? The concept that `people have screwed around
>with the tenets of Christianity' goes back to the very BEGINNING
>of the faith, Unbe!

"This is nice... but I fail to grok the importance of this (hehehe)
revelation..."

>Read Revelations, and the warnings to the seven
>churches, etc. Read all the *repeated* warnings against false
>prophets, and those who would corrupt the Word for their own gain."

"Well and good. So what you're giving me is a picture of a deity who
is so incapable of conveying a relatively simple message to his creation
that it didn't even take a full generation to completely garble it and
twist it into an excuse to maim and kill each other. Either humans are
AMAZINGLY dense (a proposition I will NOT argue), or the Christian God is
an idiot. As dense as humanity is, though, I can't imagine that as being a
hindrance to the all-supreme being that invented the species from dust.
So that leaves God as being an idiot. No, wait, I get it! It was all a
test, right? He's testing us to see which ones accept the word of a
2000-year-old self-contradicting book of fairy tales; and the ones he'll
``save'' are the ones who believe the fairy tales and not their own
rational intellects. But wait, God gave us our intellects too, right?
So he must have wanted us to THINK... now I'm confused again."

"Seriously, though, what precisely do you think that all these *repeated*
warnings prove? You tell me. Do they prove that Christianity is deep
deep down a wonderful thing that's only corrupted a little bit around the
edges? Forgive my doubt, but I don't think so."

> And you thought your fears were original, Unbe....

*LAUGH* *LAUGH* *LAUGH* "Original with *ME*?!? Oh heavens no. I'm just
the most recent of a long line of religious heretics. Let's see what I can
dig up here..."

==============================================================================
Religion is all bunk.
--Thomas Alva Edison

I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
--Clarence Darrow

The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the
way of women's emancipation.
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Faith, (n). Belief without evidence in what is told by one without
knowledge, of things without parallel.
--Ambrose Bierce

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of
wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
--Thomas Paine

Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot be true, I began to
reflect what must be the condition of mankind trained from infancy to
believe in error.
--Robert Owen

Why has a religious turn of mind always a tendency to narrow and harden
the heart?
--Robert Burns

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but
even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
--David Hume

I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority
behind it.
--Albert Einstein

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in
all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in
the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
--James Madison

I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if
so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not
believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my
best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable
doctrine.
--Charles Darwin

The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that
she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the
judgement seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for
her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and
anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a
dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the
information she might desire... Here is the Bible position of woman
briefly summed up.
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton

The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral
progress in the world.
--Bertrand Russell

...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen F Roberts

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
(So vast is the sum of the iniquites that religion has induced.)
--Lucretius

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured,
fined, imprisoned; yet, we have not advanced one inch toward
uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
To support roguery and error all over the earth.
--Thomas Jefferson

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that
happened in politics or religion.
--Carl Sagan

Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket,
a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange?
Uncertainty! Insecurity!
--Isaac Asimov

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been
premature, and it remains premature today.
--Isaac Asimov

Lord, grant that I may seek the truth, but spare me the company of those
who have found it.
--Unknown
==============================================================================

Unbe pauses for effect.

"In short, dear Leslie, I frankly see myself as standing in rather good
company. Despite being somewhat alone in my voiced opinions here..."

[Unbeliever]

In article <57dhkn$4...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:

>>"So, just out of curiousity, what religion *ARE* we talking about, anyway?"
>

>My own take on Wicca, does that change your assumptions at all?

Unbe looks chagrined. "Only to eliminate them entirely. I'd like to
think that it only takes one time getting my nose rubbed in it before I
stop making unwarranted assumptions... though recent events in this
thread might convince folks otherwise..."

>You did make some drastic assumptions, but take another look without
>them, because I'd like to see what you think about it without those
>assumptions. Forgiveness is unnecessary, there's nothing to forgive,
>no hurt done.

"Since I don't know much about Wicca, I can't do more than shrug and take
your word for it. You'll note however that even by your own account,
Wicca still at least one of the security beliefs. Thus do I not trust
it. The security beliefs are seductive... they lure you away from
rational analysis of the facts. Intuition, hunches and feelings are
great, I'm not saying to ignore them -- but you should acknowledge that
that's what they are. ``Feeling'' that a Creator exists, that death
doesn't really happen, and so on, is fine -- but recognize first that the
proof in nonexistent, and then express your feelings in that context.
Nothing is more frustrating to me than folks who are more ``sure'' of
their religion than of the reality of the world around them."

[Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.]

Jim M. Pierce wrote:

8<snippage>8

> I was taught to accept responsibility for my actions by my parents.
> And it was mentioned in Church and in Sunday School. Too bad the
> Christian Religion cannot live up to those same requirements.

"Reality check: how many corporate entities do you know of that
actually take responsibility for corporate actions?

"This does not wipe away the issues, but suggests that the problem may
be with organizational behavior of human beings, rather than just 'the
church'."

> I found more bigotry and prejudice in Christianity
> than out of it... Another big reason I left.

"I've heard that charge before, but what was your experience?

> I have never been able to understand why Christians take the attitude
> that the pogroms, etc. were done by 'not real' Christians. I used to
> feel that way, no more. Some of it was done by the sanction of the
> then Pope. There couldn't be any more real reason than a ruling by
> the then Pope. To disagree with the Pope back then meant execution
> for heresy.

"Pope, always pope.

"The pope did not define 'heresy'. Most frequently, that was done by
councils. Such as Nicea in 325, which was called by Emperor Constantine
to deal with the Arian controversy. Thus, disagreement with the pope
did not mean automatic execution for heresy.

"At one time, however, it might have meant that you wound up being at
war with the Vatican, since the pope had his own standing army.

"And as far as the term 'real Christians' goes, the truth is the vast
majority of those who call themselves 'Christian' are such in name only.

"If that is true today, when Christianity is not cumpulsory, imagine how
true it was when Christianity was enforced by law."

> Spain now has 'proof' that the Spanish Inquisition was
> no where near as bad as the rest of Europe claims it was. Yeah right.
> And if I want truthful info about the Manson Family I'll go interview
> Charlie Manson. Yeah right.

"Hey, you always have to discount for bias.

"But what was the actual statement? Perhaps something along the lines
of the Spanish Inquisition being no worse than the Inquisition of other
countries? I don't know what exactly was said, as I hadn't heard of
this 'proof' before, but my first suspision is that the PR angle is to
minimize the relationship between the Inquisition and Spain in the
public eye.

"BTW--the Spainish Inquisition probably performed more acts than the
Inquisitions of other nations because of the larger non-Christian
population: Moors and Sephardic Jews."

> To be factual, more Jews in Europe were executed by Christians, than
> Muslims killed in the Holy Land during the Crusades.

"I suppose so, if you include the Holocaust and call the Nazis
Christian.

"And the Barmen Declaration not withstanding, the Nazis did consider
themselves to be Christians as far as I can tell."

> I mean, the
> Crusades were claimed to be for the purpose of getting the Muslims
> out of Jerusalem. They didn't do that.

"Sheesh! Just because ONE military objective wasn't achieved . . .
you'd think that this was Operation Desert Storm and the Crusaders
stopped short because the CiC declared victory! <grin>

> Some of the cities raped and
> pillaged in the Holy Land were mostly Coptic Christians. But that
> was okay by the Pope then, as they were not members of The Church.

"You're right--the Coptics were one of the groups declared to be
heretics long before the Crusades."

> Yeah right. The Muslims back then didn't care what religion you
> practiced. The Christians of that day and time _required_ that
> everyone practice Christianity as designated by the Pope. The
> Christians back then practiced intolerance, and claimed Muslims were
> the intolerant ones. Yeah right.

"There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Check out the
word 'infidel'.

"Granted, Christians and Jews qualify as second-class citizens in Islam
because we're people of the book, even though we don't accept the Qoran
as scripture. So to Muslims, we're not quite heathen pigs, but we're
not quite people either.

"By the way, I don't think Christians of the period practiced
intolerance. I'd say they achieved it and didn't need to practice any
longer." <grin>

> I have yet to hear, and not just in here, a _credible_ reason for the
> Pope and others killing Christians in Europe. The Huegenots for
> instance. The 100 Years War was between Christians.

"Well, duh! Practically every European war involved Christians on both
sides. The American Civil War was between Christians too. For that
matter, so was the American Revolutionary War.

"Does that mean that Christianity is responsible for every war that
Christians are involved in? Or that humans will find a way to fight, no
matter what other beliefs they claim to hold?

> When Unbe stated that the Rennasance happening at all was when the
> power of the Church was lessening, that is true. If it had happened
> earlier, they would have been burned at the stake. Or some similar
> Christian method for dealing with those who disagree with Christian
> Dictates.

"Methinks you need to study the period more closely. The roots of the
Renaissance can be found as early as the 1200s, centuries before, in the
period known as the 'High Middle Ages'. Furthermore, it's a chicken and
the egg argument. The Renaissance was both caused by and caused the
weakening of the power of the papacy.

"BUT, the biggest factor contributin to the weakening of the power of
the papacy was the struggles over papal succession that led to the
Avignon popes, and the existence of simultaneous popes and simultaneous
councils.

"Finally, answer this question and then check the facts. When did the
church perform more executions for heresy? When it's power was
stongest, or when its influence was lessening? The answer may surprise
you."

> And yes, I _do believe_ that the 700 Club and the Christian Coalition
> are doing their Christian Best to set up a Religious Dictatorship.
> While they are in the minority, they are loud, and they have a plan.

"Well let's name the demon and be done with it--both those organziatons
are personified in one man, Pat Robertson.

"The question is, how do we ensure that America beats the odds and lasts
substantially longer than 200 years as a democratic republic?

"Actually, I find that the biggest threat in not the religious right,
but the radical liberals who want the government to provide for every
need of the populace. It's insidious because it sounds like a *good
thing*, but it will lead to further erosion of our liberties.

"The really scary scenario is where the liberals get all of these
programs set up, and then the religious right takes over."

Barthel

[Unbeliever]

In article <329B8A...@snowfox.fur.com>,

dreiss <jar...@snowfox.fur.com> wrote:
>Every once in a while, if I'm getting too arrogant or
>unfocused...there is a little rant that I repeat over and
>over to myself. It goes something like this:

[rant snipped]

The Unbeliever laughs a little bit TOO long and loud at this.

When he settles down, he says, "Thanks, Jareth." You aren't sure if that
was serious or sarcasm, and you get the feeling that Unbe's not sure
either...

[Leslie]

On 27 Nov 1996 06:32:40 GMT in alt.callahans,
him. <Ars...@cris.com> said:
+ In article <57diqr$i...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:
+ >If a husband is obeying *his*
+ >rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
+ >wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
+ >toward God first, and towards the marriage second?
+
+ "Well, dear, this world is so corrupt with devils, you won't last five
+ more minutes without being corrupted and sent to hell. So I'm going to
+ Kill you now."

"Oh. You're going to blame the Bible for the fact that people can be
psychotic idiots who misinterpret everything they read? The bit about
'killing someone to save them' is a strawman, and is not supported
by anything in the New Testament, AFAIK. Prayer is the recommended
remedy, I do believe.

"Very interesting, though, that this idea of 'loving your wife' includes
the idea of not taking her wishes into consideration at all. Doesn't
actually sound much like 'love' to me, frankly."

+ There. He loves his wife so much he would rather see her destroyed than
+ risk her soul, and he sacrifices himself (to the justice system) to save
+ her.

"Too bad there's nothing in the Bible to support this. In fact, doesn't
it say 'thou shalt not kill,' or something --? And what about the
chapter on love in Corinthians? (I Cor 13.)"

+ I, personally, ALWAYS get nervous whenever something says you must obey
+ without question. Sometimes I notice things the person giving the orders
+ doesn't y'know.

"Um, where does it say 'without question' -- ? Tell ya what, you read
up on *all* the pertinent verses regarding husbands and wives, and then
we'll chat, okay? Oh, and remember that all the other verses regarding
how a Christian is supposed to behave *also* apply to husbands and wives.

"Personally, I always took it in the sense that 'a ship can only have
one captain.' You'll agree with that philosophy, I think?"

Leslie. Have I Been Trolled?

[Meredith L. Giberson]

In article <329B8A...@snowfox.fur.com>, dreiss <jar...@snowfox.fur.com>
wrote:

~*Every once in a while, if I'm getting too arrogant or
~*unfocused...there is a little rant that I repeat over and
~*over to myself. It goes something like this:

[Rant snipped cause it's scary]

Jareth,

That was very eloquent, and I hope it helps you when you use it.
Personally, the sentiments expressed made me feel vaguely sick to my
stomach. If you need to repeat that to yourself to keep your ego in
check--I hope I never meet your ego in a dark alley! *SHUDDER* Every line
made me feel exponentially worse than the one before it.

Please understand, this isn't a flame of any kind...you just went on at
great length about something that scares the hell out of me! It's my
problem, not yours.

--Kestrel
(Or should that be "Meg" for "Megalomania"? I only WISH I were a
megalomaniac...)

[A. Harvie]

Michael Holmes wrote:
>
>
> "The fact that the final curtain _must_ come down on the play makes
> it no less a wonderful experience."
>
>

Andrew, the newcomer who has yet to formally introduce himself, pipes
up:

"I'll drink to that. The great here-after is after here. Panic
attacks are real things and mighty awful to experience but, I'd class
fear of death with fear of the dark and get to work on dealing with it.
It's a-gonna get dark, and we're a-gonna die eventually. Might as
well enjoy the show while we can. Seems to me that a more profitable
point of conversation would be 'how to deal with fear' than 'what comes
after death?'

"In any case, I would be pleased to pay for your next drink out
of gratitude for your quote above which expresses the idea so
succinctly. I've been searching for a good way to say what you just
did.

[Zaphkiel]

In article <57i17c$o...@zap.io.org>, dei...@zap.io.org says...

>
>On 27 Nov 1996 06:32:40 GMT in alt.callahans,
>him. <Ars...@cris.com> said:
>+ In article <57diqr$i...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>+ >If a husband is obeying *his*
>+ >rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
>+ >wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
>+ >toward God first, and towards the marriage second?
>+
>+ "Well, dear, this world is so corrupt with devils, you won't last five
>+ more minutes without being corrupted and sent to hell. So I'm going to
>+ Kill you now."
>
>"Oh. You're going to blame the Bible for the fact that people can be
>psychotic idiots who misinterpret everything they read? The bit about
>'killing someone to save them' is a strawman, and is not supported
>by anything in the New Testament, AFAIK. Prayer is the recommended
>remedy, I do believe.

The New Testament is the Bible, but the Old Testament isn't?? How
did that happen? Has the Pope changed his mind AGAIN?

>+ There. He loves his wife so much he would rather see her destroyed than
>+ risk her soul, and he sacrifices himself (to the justice system) to save
>+ her.
>
>"Too bad there's nothing in the Bible to support this. In fact, doesn't
>it say 'thou shalt not kill,' or something --? And what about the
>chapter on love in Corinthians? (I Cor 13.)"

What about Abraham being directly instructed to kill his son? I think
that's close enough to support this.

>
>+ I, personally, ALWAYS get nervous whenever something says you must obey
>+ without question. Sometimes I notice things the person giving the orders
>+ doesn't y'know.
>
>"Um, where does it say 'without question' -- ? Tell ya what, you read
>up on *all* the pertinent verses regarding husbands and wives, and then
>we'll chat, okay? Oh, and remember that all the other verses regarding
>how a Christian is supposed to behave *also* apply to husbands and wives.
>
>"Personally, I always took it in the sense that 'a ship can only have
>one captain.' You'll agree with that philosophy, I think?"

When I'm on a ship, yes.

>
>Leslie. Have I Been Trolled?

No, you're just wrong.

--Zaphkiel

[Zaphkiel]

In article <329C34...@ptdprolog.net>, "Kevin says...

>
>Jim M. Pierce wrote:
>
>8<snippage>8
>
>> I was taught to accept responsibility for my actions by my parents.
>> And it was mentioned in Church and in Sunday School. Too bad the
>> Christian Religion cannot live up to those same requirements.
>
>"Reality check: how many corporate entities do you know of that
>actually take responsibility for corporate actions?
>
>"This does not wipe away the issues, but suggests that the problem may
>be with organizational behavior of human beings, rather than just 'the
>church'."

This is a valid point. However, a corporation is a financial entity,
and does take responsibility for it's financial actions. A church is a
moral and ethical institution, and must take responsibility for it's
moral and ethical actions. In a perfect world, they would both take
responsibility for both.

>> I mean, the
>> Crusades were claimed to be for the purpose of getting the Muslims
>> out of Jerusalem. They didn't do that.
>
>"Sheesh! Just because ONE military objective wasn't achieved . . .
>you'd think that this was Operation Desert Storm and the Crusaders
>stopped short because the CiC declared victory! <grin>

Just a side note. If you ever get a chance to see The Crusades on,
I think, A&E, check it out. It's narrated and hosted by one of the
Monty Python guys (Jones, I think), but it's a really good effort of
making history 'come alive'. Learning can be fun.

>
>> And yes, I _do believe_ that the 700 Club and the Christian Coalition
>> are doing their Christian Best to set up a Religious Dictatorship.
>> While they are in the minority, they are loud, and they have a plan.
>
>"Well let's name the demon and be done with it--both those organziatons
>are personified in one man, Pat Robertson.

"The feminist agenda...is not about equal rights for women. It is
about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women
to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft and
become lesbians."
Pat Robertson

And, of course, no discussion of the Christian Coalition would be
complete without bringing up the name of Ralph Reed. Self proclaimed
practitioner of 'stealth politics'. Lying in the service of God is a
*good* thing! yeah right
Which brings us full circle.

--Zaphkiel

[Meredith L. Giberson]

In article <57gktb$o...@news.orst.edu>, bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) wrote:

~*The Unbeliever laughs a little bit TOO long and loud at this.
~*
~*When he settles down, he says, "Thanks, Jareth." You aren't sure if that
~*was serious or sarcasm, and you get the feeling that Unbe's not sure
~*either...

Kestrel offers the Unbeliever a hug...one she thinks she probably needs
after reading that rant as much if not more than he. "Me, too, friend..."
she says softly.

--Kestrel
(who has NOT forgotten that she has email to answer...)

[grammarfascist]

On 27 Nov 1996, him. wrote:

> "Unbe, Judeau(how the hell DO you spell that?)-Christianity CAN fulfill

Rose, carefully staying out of this thread, slips Al a note which reads
"Judeo-Christianity" and goes back to contemplating her eventual emergence
from the Danger Room.

--Rose

ROSEv1.2b * Projected release date: May 2000 * Email for details

[Leslie]

On 27 Nov 1996 05:36:04 GMT in alt.callahans,
Unbeliever <bye...@ucs.orst.edu> said:
+ In article <57diqr$i...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:
+ >If a husband is obeying *his*
+ >rule (loving his wife as he loves his own body), then what problem would a
+ >wife have obeying hers? Given that *both* of them considered their duty
+ >toward God first, and towards the marriage second?
+
+ The Unbeliever stands in shock, and slowly shakes his head. If he didn't
+ know better, he'd think that Leslie was saying that if the man is good
+ enough, the woman should be happy not having a say in anything. SURELY
+ Leslie didn't say that?

"Well, first of all, please point to the verse that says a wife isn't
allowed to express her feelings to her husband. Then explain to me how
completely ignoring his wife's wishes qualifies as 'loving her.' You
are aware of the verse that speaks of the husband 'honoring' his wife,
with the reminder that they are heirs *together* of the grace of life,
that his prayers not be hindered? (I Pet. 3:7)."

+ >"Perhaps you ought to study the Bible a little more yourself, Unbe. How
+ >many other misconceptions about the Bible do you suppose you have -- ?"
+
+ Since he doesn't count that last as a misconception, he hasn't found his
+ first one (concerning the Bible) yet...

"Like I said, show me the verse that literally says a 'wife has NO
right to speak her mind.' And I mean a verse that applies to life at
home, not one that applies to the Church.

"How long has it been such you read the New Testament for yourself, Unbe?
Mabye this would go better if you really knew what it *said*, and not just
what you've heard people *say* it said?"

+ >+ Women STILL can't be priests
+ >+ in many of the flavors of Christianity."
+ >
+ >".....and your point is?
+
+ *NOW* Unbe lets his jaw drop. The next thing you know, Leslie will be
+ announcing that she subscribes to the barefoot-and-pregnant theory on
+ the role of women...

"Unbe? You tried your 'I know what you think better than you do' act
out on Shonias already, and you *do* remember how *that* one turned out,
don't you? (Have you got all the egg off your face yet?)

"Interestingly enough, you didn't answer the question. What, exactly,
is wrong with the Church having very specific roles for men and women?"

+ >Read Revelations, and the warnings to the seven
+ >churches, etc. Read all the *repeated* warnings against false
+ >prophets, and those who would corrupt the Word for their own gain."
+
+ "Well and good. So what you're giving me is a picture of a deity who
+ is so incapable of conveying a relatively simple message to his creation
+ that it didn't even take a full generation to completely garble it and
+ twist it into an excuse to maim and kill each other.

"That or the message fell on deaf ears. I'm betting on that one,
personally. It was a very different message from the message in the
Old Testament, and it's a true fact that people do resist change."

+ Either humans are
+ AMAZINGLY dense (a proposition I will NOT argue), or the Christian God is
+ an idiot.

"Not dense, according to the Bible. Sinners is more like it."

+ As dense as humanity is, though, I can't imagine that as being a
+ hindrance to the all-supreme being that invented the species from dust.

"Well, I suppose he *could* have made it so that every time anyone
ever even thought about sinning they'd be hit with an electric shock,
or something, to make them stop. But then we'd be puppets for sure,
so what would the point actually be?"

+ So that leaves God as being an idiot. No, wait, I get it! It was all a
+ test, right? He's testing us to see which ones accept the word of a
+ 2000-year-old self-contradicting book of fairy tales;

"2000 years ago, it wasn't 2000 years old, don't forget..."

+ and the ones he'll
+ ``save'' are the ones who believe the fairy tales and not their own
+ rational intellects. But wait, God gave us our intellects too, right?
+ So he must have wanted us to THINK... now I'm confused again."

"See the verse that says Christians should be as wise as serpents and
as harmless as doves."

+ "Seriously, though, what precisely do you think that all these *repeated*
+ warnings prove? You tell me. Do they prove that Christianity is deep
+ deep down a wonderful thing that's only corrupted a little bit around the
+ edges? Forgive my doubt, but I don't think so."

"They prove that God knew *exactly* what humans were capable of (and who
would know better?). And no doubt he knew people wouldn't pay much
attention to the warnings, either. That was a prophesy."

[Unbe quotes a long list of famous Christianity-bashers.]

+ "In short, dear Leslie, I frankly see myself as standing in rather good
+ company. Despite being somewhat alone in my voiced opinions here..."

"Okay. So, how does it feel to know that you are a part of the
prophesy coming true? That because of evil done in the name of
Christianity, the truth is evil spoken of?"

Leslie. Thanks for making the point so well, too.

[Unbeliever]

In article <57gma7$c...@herald.concentric.net>, him. <Ars...@cris.com> wrote:

>"Okay," Al says, "For starters, why didn't you assume that they were
>right about their beliefs the FIRST time around, and THEN ask them
>if (say) they felt that prayer would be all they needed to do to get
>what they wanted?"

Unbe looks up at Al. "In short, Al, I made the assumption that someone
responding to that post of mine and denying most of the security beliefs
had anything to do with them, must be a Christian, and trying to defend
Christianity from my claim that it fulfilled all six security beliefs.
That inital assumption was wrong, and therefore my reasoning from it was
wrong. But I *DID* admit my assumption and even apologized in advance if
it were wrong. My phraseology may not have been up to par, but SHONIAS
INTERPRETED IT AS I INTENDED! I therefore declare that those who jumped
on me for it have been overreacting, and ask to let off the hook now."

"I freely admit personal prejudice against ``Christianity''. *HOWEVER*, my
prejudice is *NOT* blind; it exists because of what I *SEE*. I am not
naturally so filled with hate. I hate because of what I see being done
in the name of ``Christianity'' by the Religious Right, because of what
I've read about having been done in the past in the name of
``Christianity'' by self-rightious assholes all over the world, and
because of the blindness that causes otherwise rational people to take
up religion as if it were something more than socially acceptable
superstition and myth. One of my best friends, whose intelligence I
respect highly, has been brainwashed so thoroughly that he cannot
comprehend the barest possibility of a world which is older than 6000
years. He bends over backward to try and rationalize Noah's Flood, and
when his creativity fails him, he relies on ``God Did It'' -- in other
words, intellectual Jello. *THIS* is what religion fucking does to people."

"Listen to Leslie talking elsewhere in this thread, about how women
should be happy with men making the decisions, so long as they love
their wives and let them talk about household matters and so
on (I don't pretend to understand the conditions under which she defends
this). The BIBLE taught her this! This is the word of enlightened
Christianty! That women aren't equal. That their ``place'' is
subservience to men!"

Unbe sneers.

"I once knew a woman who took that lesson to heart a little TOO well.
She was physically abused, *BADLY* and *REPEATEDLY*, by her husband, and
would not listen to the advice her friends and I gave her to leave him
and seek help. It was all her fault, see, she just wasn't trying hard
enough to please him. And she couldn't get a divorce. She took her
Bible seriously. And came fucking close to dying for it."

The Unbeliever eyes Leslie.

"Hey Leslie: find me a place in the Bible where a woman sued for divorce
and won, based on her husband's behavior. And I'll return the favor with
three times as many places, listed by chapter and verse, where women
are treated as property, with God's full approval and blessing. I've
already got mine selected and ready..."

[Jim M. Pierce]

my apologies for mis-spelled words. My terminal emulator is going
bonkers.

Barthel:
[] "Reality check: how many corporate entities do you know of that

[] actually take responsibility for corporate actions?

State religions are a 'corporation' they are responsible for the
actions they sanctify. i.e. If a state religion says kill those over
there, they look different than we do, they are resposible. Whether or
not they take responsibility. is immaterial. They are responsible.

[] "This does not wipe away the issues, but suggests that the problem may

[] be with organizational behavior of human beings, rather than just 'the
[] church'."

Well one of the Popes ordered the Crusades. At the time, the Pope was
head of The Christian Church.

[] > I found more bigotry and prejudice in Christianity

[] > than out of it... Another big reason I left.
[]
[] "I've heard that charge before, but what was your experience?

white Baptists praying to god, using ethnic slurs the other 6 days.
They saw nothing wrong with it. The list is several pages long...

Or Baptists driving over to 'Dark Town' [ their words ] and shouting
slurs, and rapidly driving off. And if anyone reacted, they would report
it to the police. And cops would go over and arrest a few folks.
But not those Fine Christian Men, nope, not them.

Not all people I went to Church with did that, but a large enough
number of them did such things as to make me wonder what I had gotten
myself into by joining that Church.

[] > then Pope. There couldn't be any more real reason than a ruling by

[] > the then Pope. To disagree with the Pope back then meant execution
[] > for heresy.
[]
[] "Pope, always pope.

He, the office, was held to be the head of The Christian Church for
many centuries. God's direct representative on Earth. Since it was the
major Christian church [ in number of members] for many centuries, and
the Pope was the head of it, of course I mention the Pope.

[] "At one time, however, it might have meant that you wound up being at

[] war with the Vatican, since the pope had his own standing army.

The Pope didn't always have a standing army. King Charlemange had to
defend the Pope and Rome from time to time.

[] "And as far as the term 'real Christians' goes, the truth is the vast

[] majority of those who call themselves 'Christian' are such in name only.

Uhm... to be a Christian, you believe in God, and say you are a
Christian. Also that Jesus was the Son of God. There are no other
requirements. Now, someone can claim they are a Christian, and we have
to believe them. Since telepathy doesn't exist. We have to take that
person's verbal statement that they believe that Jesus was the Son of
God and He died for our sins. Thats the only requirement I was told
about, back when I belonged to the Southern Baptist church.

Back when I was Baptised, I had to profess a belief in God as the
Supreme Being and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, and that Jesus
died for our sins on the Cross. Then they dunked me under the water in
that pool back behind the choir and pulpit. I was then a Baptised
Baptist.

Oh, A Southern Baptist Church is a Baptist church that follows the
tenents on the Southern Baptist Convention. Otherwise they are an
Independent Baptist Church. Or AME Baptist Church, etc. etc.

[] "If that is true today, when Christianity is not cumpulsory, imagine how

[] true it was when Christianity was enforced by law."

thats part of my point. It has gotten a little better.
But try being a non-Christian in a small Southern town with nothing but
Baptist Churches in it; however, middle of the road Baptist Churches
will leave you alone if you say you are not interested. In the Church I
went to, if you continue to preach Christianity after someone asks you
to stop, you are sinning... These days it seems a rather difficult task
to _find_ a middle of the road Baptist Church.

[] > Spain now has 'proof' that the Spanish Inquisition was

[] > no where near as bad as the rest of Europe claims it was. Yeah right.
[] > And if I want truthful info about the Manson Family I'll go interview
[] > Charlie Manson. Yeah right.
[]
[] "Hey, you always have to discount for bias.

I do. Thats why I don't believe Spain's recent claims that the Spanish
Inquisition wasn't as bad as it was made out to be...

[] "But what was the actual statement? Perhaps something along the lines

The claim was that only a 'few' were tried and executed for heresy.
Not the thousands as claimed by the rest of Europe. I remember they said
'only a few hundred' were executed. Oh wow. Only a few hundred were
burned at the stake, etc. not thousands... I was _not_ impressed by the
claims presented on that porgram by Spanish archaeologists and Church
leaders. Their evidence ? Old documents, just found in Spain. My first
thought was, 'I wonder if the ink is dry...' If evidence from a
non-Spanish source was found and mentioned, I would be more likely to
believe their claim.

[] minimize the relationship between the Inquisition and Spain in the
[] public eye.

It was on either The Learning Channel or A&E this past year. It was a
program done in Spain and presented by the cable channel, not done by
the cable channel.

[] "BTW--the Spainish Inquisition probably performed more acts than the

[] Inquisitions of other nations because of the larger non-Christian
[] population: Moors and Sephardic Jews."

Its my understanding that the Spanish Inquisition had no control over
Moorish Spain... They executed Christians and Jews. Along with 'splinter'
Christian groups. Well, Christian groups that Catholicism thought were
splinter Christian groups. Some didn't see the Pope as God's
Representative on Earth. That was considered a burnable idea.

[] > To be factual, more Jews in Europe were executed by Christians, than

[] > Muslims killed in the Holy Land during the Crusades.
[]
[] "I suppose so, if you include the Holocaust and call the Nazis
[] Christian.

Adolf never said he was a Christian. And I am refering to the era of
the Crusades, not modern times.

[] "And the Barmen Declaration not withstanding, the Nazis did consider

[] themselves to be Christians as far as I can tell."

Some members were also members of the Lutheran Church. And some were
German Catholics. But not Adolf. The guy who was in charge was not a
Christian, unlike the Pope or various other Kings and Queens who waged
war in the name of God. From various books i have read, many German
Christians disagreed with Adolf, but they felt powerless to do anything
about him.

Look at the Nazi Art. Hitler is portrayed as a God. As a replacement
for Jesus, etc. He put priests and preachers in concentration camps.

[] "There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Check out the
[] word 'infidel'.

Yup. But during the Crusades, the Muslims had more of a live and let
live attitude for those under their control than the Christians of the
same era. The Crusades was one of the reasons they changed that attitude
towards Christians.

[] as scripture. So to Muslims, we're not quite heathen pigs, but we're
[] not quite people either.

Yeah. And I am left-handed...

[] "Well, duh! Practically every European war involved Christians on both

[] sides. The American Civil War was between Christians too. For that
[] matter, so was the American Revolutionary War.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Back in the Crusades, the then Pope declared
that meant non-Christians were okay to kill. He said that because many
devout Knights found it hard to reconcile the 'kill the Muslims' and
'Thou Shalt Not Kill' statements. So, he changed the meaning so the
First Crusade could go forward.

And the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War were not about
religion.

[] "Does that mean that Christianity is responsible for every war that

[] Christians are involved in? Or that humans will find a way to fight, no
[] matter what other beliefs they claim to hold?

No. It means that wars fought over differences in religious belief,
are not acceptable.

Of course, I would fight someone who believed in human sacrifice...

[] "BUT, the biggest factor contributin to the weakening of the power of

[] the papacy was the struggles over papal succession that led to the
[] Avignon popes, and the existence of simultaneous popes and simultaneous
[] councils.

I don't know enough about that bit.

[] "Finally, answer this question and then check the facts. When did the

[] church perform more executions for heresy? When it's power was
[] stongest, or when its influence was lessening? The answer may surprise
[] you."

No idea.

[] "The question is, how do we ensure that America beats the odds and lasts

[] substantially longer than 200 years as a democratic republic?

Well, I think the extreme ideas, and the total unwillingness to
compromise, is going to cause major problems in this country. And on
this planet.

What we need are working starships. Lets those who don't agree with
anyone, find a planet for their ideas to flourish.

Or at least getting folks to Mars. Lots of splinter groups around
wanting their own land and place under the sun. Mars would do that. And
the moon is a bad idea, they could throw rocks at us.

[] "Actually, I find that the biggest threat in not the religious right,

[] but the radical liberals who want the government to provide for every

I believe them both to be a problem.

[] Just think about it: Windows 95 is Commodore Amiga '84--almost, but not

[] quite.
[] "Friends don't let friends do Windows. Be a designated Amigan."

Well, we agree on one thing ! I'm an Amiga user for about 8 years,
since 1988. And a contributor to I-AMIGA's Amiga Intro files.

DJ.
--
Jim Pierce jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.

Recent Book: 'The Royal Oak Disaster' by Gerald S. Snyder

[Unbeliever]

In article <57i9ue$3...@zap.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zap.io.org> wrote:

>+ The Unbeliever stands in shock, and slowly shakes his head. If he didn't
>+ know better, he'd think that Leslie was saying that if the man is good
>+ enough, the woman should be happy not having a say in anything. SURELY
>+ Leslie didn't say that?
>
>"Well, first of all, please point to the verse that says a wife isn't
>allowed to express her feelings to her husband.

"While the phrase ``having a say'' *CAN* be interpreted literally as
``being able to express your feelings'', I was intending the more common
usage of the phrase, namely ``getting a vote''. In a two-person debate i
which one person gets ``tie-breaker'' status, the other person's vote
isn't very useful, is it?"

> Then explain to me how
>completely ignoring his wife's wishes qualifies as 'loving her.'

"You've just succeeded in making the assumption that two people who love
each other can never disagree. In my experience, people in love CAN
disagree, vehemently. Maybe you've got a better life than I do. But
what you've said here, as best I can make out, is that in any
disagreement, the man's view should prevail. And you defend this notion."

"Silly me, I was raised to believe that humans were humans, regardless of
gender, all equal. It's a quaint notion; don't know how I've lasted this
long in the real world while believing such obvious bunk."

>You are aware of the verse that speaks of the husband 'honoring' his wife,
>with the reminder that they are heirs *together* of the grace of life,
>that his prayers not be hindered? (I Pet. 3:7)."

"I simply can't imagine the circumstances in which you defend the above,
Leslie, I really can't. Which version of the Bible are you reading,
anyway? I'll go out and get one just like yours, so I can be brainwashed
(excuse me: make that ``so I can feel the warm power of my Personal Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, and humbly ask for his assistance in seeking
the Truth''), just like you."

>"Like I said, show me the verse that literally says a 'wife has NO
>right to speak her mind.' And I mean a verse that applies to life at
>home, not one that applies to the Church.

"Like I'm saying, show me the verse that literally says that a woman is
in all matters the equal of a man. And I mean a verse that applies to
ALL aspects of life, at home as WELL as Church."

>"How long has it been such you read the New Testament for yourself, Unbe?
>Mabye this would go better if you really knew what it *said*, and not just
>what you've heard people *say* it said?"

<sarcasm mode on>
"Well, gee, now, Leslie, I'd go out and do just that if only I were big
and smart like you. Its got so many big words in it, I could never get
through it by myself. Could you come over and read it to me sometime?"
<sarcasm mode off>

"I won't dignify your remark by responding any further than that."

>+ *NOW* Unbe lets his jaw drop. The next thing you know, Leslie will be
>+ announcing that she subscribes to the barefoot-and-pregnant theory on
>+ the role of women...
>
>"Unbe? You tried your 'I know what you think better than you do' act
>out on Shonias already, and you *do* remember how *that* one turned out,
>don't you? (Have you got all the egg off your face yet?)

"Leslie? You've tried your self-rightious and morally superior act out
in this thread already, and you *DO* see how *THAT* one's turning out,

don't you? (Have you got all the egg off your face yet?)"

>"Interestingly enough, you didn't answer the question. What, exactly,
>is wrong with the Church having very specific roles for men and women?"

The Unbeliever has given up trying to clean out his ears. Apparently
Leslie *IS* defending this notion, quite vehemently. Equality be damned,
if you're unfortunate enough to be born with the wrong set of gonads,
your fate is set in stone. Fortunately, Unbe senses that this is more of
a Leslie-aberration than some deeper conspiracy of Callahanian minds, so
he won't bother addressing it any further.

>"Well, I suppose he *could* have made it so that every time anyone
>ever even thought about sinning they'd be hit with an electric shock,
>or something, to make them stop. But then we'd be puppets for sure,
>so what would the point actually be?"

"Apparantly we're puppets anyway. Or what ELSE would you call ``Live as
I say or burn in hell''? Freedom of choice?"

>+ So that leaves God as being an idiot. No, wait, I get it! It was all a
>+ test, right? He's testing us to see which ones accept the word of a
>+ 2000-year-old self-contradicting book of fairy tales;
>
>"2000 years ago, it wasn't 2000 years old, don't forget..."

"Oh, yes, Leslie, you're right. I actually thought it was 4000 years
old. Silly me."

>+ and the ones he'll
>+ ``save'' are the ones who believe the fairy tales and not their own
>+ rational intellects. But wait, God gave us our intellects too, right?
>+ So he must have wanted us to THINK... now I'm confused again."
>
>"See the verse that says Christians should be as wise as serpents and
>as harmless as doves."

"Wasn't the serpent the one who DEFIED God in the first place? Convinced
Eve to commit that most heinous of crimes, that of eating a piece of fruit?
So... the true meaning of that verse is that Christians should be smart
enough to defy God! Yes, I think I can agree with that one..."

>"They prove that God knew *exactly* what humans were capable of (and who
>would know better?). And no doubt he knew people wouldn't pay much
>attention to the warnings, either. That was a prophesy."

"I hereby prophesize that the sun will continue to rise in the east for
another 2000 years to come. You may deify and worship me at your
leisure. For my prophesy is at LEAST as insightful as that one..."

>[Unbe quotes a long list of famous Christianity-bashers.]
>
>+ "In short, dear Leslie, I frankly see myself as standing in rather good
>+ company. Despite being somewhat alone in my voiced opinions here..."
>
>"Okay. So, how does it feel to know that you are a part of the
>prophesy coming true? That because of evil done in the name of
>Christianity, the truth is evil spoken of?"

"I hereby prophesize that Leslie will respond to this message and
continue to defend the notion of gender inequality and God-given
``roles'' for men and women. And when she does so, I will ask her how it
feels to know that SHE is part of MY prophesy coming true, and thus
lending credit to my new-found religion of Unbeism."

[Unbeliever]

In article <57j3a6$p...@news.chattanooga.net>,
Lee Billings <bill...@chattanooga.net> wrote:

>Wow, what a great list of quotes! Do you have any more handy from the
>Founding Fathers? Some of these would be terrific weapons against all the
>"this is a Christian country" types.

Unbe grins. "Actually, I *DO*, somewhere, I think. I'll keep an eye
out. The best place to look for all KINDS of online materials on this
topic is the Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org). They've got a
positively AMAZING library of both historical and current writings."

"Come to think of it, there *WERE* a few quotes I didn't type in from my
list last time, and several of those *WERE* from the Founding Fathers...
I don't think they're generally as good as the ones I used, but let's see,
here..."

=========================================================================

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be
one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded
Fear.
--Thomas Jefferson

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
--John Adams

It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now
in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their
reward systems don't try to make it posthumous.
--Gloria Steinem

It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most
anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are
wearing the dresses.
--Flo Kennedy

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a
child, cannot be a true system.
--Thomas Paine

One of my favorite fantasies is that next Sunday not one single woman, in
any country of the world, will go to church. If women simply stop giving
our time and energy to the institutions that oppress, they would cease to be.
--Sonia Johnson

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it
does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that
its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a
sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
--Benjamin Franklin

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the
private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the
church and the state forever separated.
--Ulysses S. Grant

Persecution is not always an original feature in any religion, but it is
always the most strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.
--Thomas Paine

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no
God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
--Thomas Jefferson

One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness almost forces one to do this.
--Friedrich Nietzsche

It is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from
the exercise of its own reason.
--Mary Wollstonecraft

Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on
hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.
--Robert Ingersoll

=============================================================================

"That's all for now..."

[Lee Billings]

In article <57gk04$o...@news.orst.edu>, Unbeliever says...
>
<snip>

[John Palmer]

A. Harvie (har...@tuns.ca) wrote:
: Craig Helfgott wrote:
: >
: > I am quoting the entire post <snipped> because I am having the exact same problems
: > as Unbeliever. I don't have attacks (perhaps because I am better at
: > supressing my emotions), but I do have mini-attacks at least once or
: > twice a week,

(deletia)

: I can relate to what you're saying. Have been in much the same place myself, and
: bounced back and forth between being a believer and non- for many years. I've
: settled firmly info place as a non- now.

: there is one piece of general advice that may fit: Don't try not to think about it.
: If something is causing you concern or worry, then it needs to be confronted. I

Erm. Maybe. You also need to know when to let go. Had a bad
relationship, and can't figure out if YOU ruined it? You TRULY can't
figure it out? Then let it go. Don't forget the lessons you learned, but
don't let it continue to haunt you.

You can kill yourself with "what if" and "if only" and "WHY?". You
need to learn to let it go. It will BE, whether you're happy or sad about
it, whether it causes you anxiety or not, whether it angers you or brings
you peace.

So, if you can't change it, let it go. . . at least until you CAN.

: I suspect that was what was meant in one of the earlier posts by:
: > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Leslie wrote:
: >
: > > Having made friends with death some fifteen or so years ago, Leslie
: > > listens to Unbe and Kestrel with increasing worry and concern.
: >(please correct me if I mis-intrepreted you Leslie)

: I've found for myself that my fears only go away when I confront them, accept them
: as real, find the source and examine it. As for the fear of death, I've stopped
: worrying about it

Bingo. Letting it go, refusing to give it power over your life,
because *YOU CAN'T AFFECT IT*.

[John Palmer]

Unbeliever (bye...@ucs.orst.edu) wrote:
: In article <56qr70$dfg$1...@info1.fnal.gov>, <mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV> wrote:

: >Reed Byers <bye...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
: >>"Heh. People buy into all kinds of crap to avoid the very problem
: >>Kestrel and I have.
: >
: >"I hope you will forgive me if I take some umbrage at your usage of
: >crap.

And I'll note that the implication that seems to be driven at is
that "spiritual beliefs that might comfort a person about death are
'crap'."

: Unbe considers his answer. "So long the implied subject matter of my
: sentence remains as I intended it (i.e. supernatural beliefs of various
: forms, including but not limited to religion), then I stand by my stated
: view that it is all crap.

And here, I find you making such a broad generalization that I'm
nearly entirely certain that you don't have enough knowlege about that I'm
*ALMOST* shocked. I've heard many other make the same statement however,
so it's more disappointment than shock.

: But since it inspires an equal
: amount of evil as it does good (see: Crusades, Dark Ages, Salem Witch
: Trials, Spanish Inquisition, Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, to
: name but a few examples), the good alone cannot justify it.

"Strange," John muses with the obvious intent of making a point. "He
was talking about all religions a few minutes ago, and now he's only
talking about one that happened to acquire a large amount of influence in
matters political. . . ."

: "My usual feeling is that anybody who takes offense at my saying this is
: at best brainwashed and intellectually lazy, or at worst, an
: intentional propagator of known hogwash in an attempt to sucker the
: masses in a play for money or political power. But since my intention is
: not to cause offense in this of all places, and since I do not personally
: know the overwhelming majority of those hearing my voice right now, I
: will be happy to add ``present company excepted'' and let it go at that.

"My usual feeling about niggers is that they're all lazy, shiftless
folk, but YOU guys are okay, so don't call me racist."

Please don't tell me you *CAN'T* see the direct mapping from your
statement to that quote. Instead, do me the favor of modifying your
statement until it no longer fits OR states your position more truthfully.

: I'm not StM; I do not thrive on hurt feelings or derive any benefit from
: beating others up verbally. I hope no offense has been taken by any
: of this..."

Speaker, at his worst, never hypocritically requested that he be "let
off" for being offensive; if he was offensive, he embraced the offense he
gave, and never made an excuse for it. He DESPISED any form of subtle
offense given "accidentally", and therefore made the offensiveness unsubtle
and intentional. I won't judge his actions to be *GOOD*. . . but I'll
point out that they are more respectable and respectful than a "polite" dig
that asks that all anger be swallowed for "politeness" sake.

: "None other than Isaac Asimov wrote an essay (entitled ``Knock Plastic!'',
: and most recently anthologized with his last fantasy short stories in a
: book entitled ``Magic'' published by HarperPrism). In this essay, he
: referred to one of the main purposes of religion as being to support
: ``security beliefs''
(deletia)

: 1) There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into
: protecting mankind.

: 2) There is no such thing, really, as death.

: 3) There is some purpose to the universe.

: 4) Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something
: for nothing.

: 5) You are better than the next fellow.

: 6) If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.

: "I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many of these is
: addressed by his or her PARTICULAR religion,

Hows about "none". I believe that there are supernatural forces
that can teach "mankind", which doesn't 'protect' it other than from
itself. I believe that there COULD be life after death, and that any
rational life after death will let you continue to seek that which you
sought while alive; I believe that there is an absolute method of finding
goodness, but don't believe that it lends some 'purpose' to the universe,
and I won't even bother to rebut 4, 5, or 6 because they're so completely
antithetical to anything I believe in I can't think of a counter.

[John Palmer]

him. (Ars...@cris.com) wrote:
: In article <57d3d0$g...@zot.io.org>, Leslie <dei...@zot.io.org> wrote:
: >"Actually, not that it matters, which it doesn't, really, but StM
: >said he was *ESPECIALLY* [his emphasis] likely to slice and dice a
: >flawed arugment in support of a conclusion he *agreed* with, even
: >more than in support of a conclusion he disagreed with. He hated
: >to see people reach a right conclusion by the wrong means."

: "I ain't real fond of it myself," Al admits, "But I've got a sneakin'
: hunch he would not have found unbe's methods wrong, having watched this
: very conversation happen with him."

: Big Al. Itosu caught it in the last incarnation, as I recall.

Speaker and I went hammer and tongs over religion several times; I
think he eventually accepted my religious beliefs as being "not too bad"
(though, of course, he didn't admit it). He grudgingly admitted that
religion might be a crutch, for e.g., but a crutch can also be used to help
a person walk when they couldn't. So, if, e.g., my religious beliefs let
me do something I strongly consider good when I'm too tired/upset/whatever
to do it for *ANY* other reason, it's still a 'crutch', sort of, but he
seemed willing to grant me that this wasn't BAD.

I think he'd agree with the intent of Unbe's statements, that "most
religion is formed of crap"; further than that, I don't know.

[Claudia Marie]

bye...@ucs.orst.edu (Unbeliever) writes:
>My phraseology may not have been up to par, but SHONIAS
>INTERPRETED IT AS I INTENDED! I therefore declare that those who jumped
>on me for it have been overreacting, and ask to let off the hook now."

Claudia shrugs. "I said that while Shonias might not mind it, *I* found
it rude. Is that "jumping on you"? I don't know."

"I still would like to know what you thought of my description of prayer."

>"I freely admit personal prejudice against ``Christianity''. *HOWEVER*, my
>prejudice is *NOT* blind; it exists because of what I *SEE*.

"No, not blind. Perhaps blinding, though? It gave you a certain tunnel-
vision in responding to Shonias, didn't it?"

"Unbe, that's why I didn't respond to your post more approvingly. I *am*
a secular humanist. But I don't respond to people according to whether
they're on my "side" of an argument, but according to how their arguments
hold together. I often respond to both sides of a discussion, trying to
keep everyone intellectually honest. Like Speaker, yet very unlike."
She winks.

>"Listen to Leslie talking elsewhere in this thread, about how women
>should be happy with men making the decisions, so long as they love
>their wives and let them talk about household matters and so
>on (I don't pretend to understand the conditions under which she defends
>this). The BIBLE taught her this! This is the word of enlightened
>Christianty! That women aren't equal. That their ``place'' is
>subservience to men!"

"I think you read more into it than she intended. She didn't defend
the subservience of women other than by pointing out that men are also
subservient, if they follow the rules. To the matter of women in the
clergy, she said something of about the length and sentiment of,
"And?" or "so what?", which isn't much to draw conclusions from
concerning her thoughts on the matter. I think she was hoping for more
from you, in response."

>Unbe sneers.

Claudia blinks in some astonishment.

>"I once knew a woman who took that lesson to heart a little TOO well.

[sad story deleted]

>The Unbeliever eyes Leslie.

>"Hey Leslie: find me a place in the Bible where a woman sued for divorce
>and won, based on her husband's behavior. And I'll return the favor with
>three times as many places, listed by chapter and verse, where women
>are treated as property, with God's full approval and blessing. I've
>already got mine selected and ready..."

Claudia shrugs. "I'm not about to be an apologist for the Bible. I
think it was written by fallible men, and no more. But let me also say
that most of those examples can be looked at similar to the kosher laws;
a product of their times and situations. Just as the health concerns
that were responsible for most of the laws of food preparation do not
now apply, so has society changed."

Claudia
(mailed and posted)
--
"Not many people think I'm real." -- The Wizard of Speed and Time

[LIN KA-MING (Magus Firecow)]

Michael Holmes wrote:
>
> [The purple guy has been delaying entrance into this conversation,
> mostly because he didn't feel he had the time necessary to really
> absorb the discussion, give it the attention it deserved. When
> he finally starts listening, it isn't quite the conversation he
> expected, and he's shocked to find Kestrel and Unbe describing
> feelings of 'mortality-panic' -- something he has been very
> familiar with in his life. He's more than a little surprised
> to hear echoes of an *intensity* that he thought only he
> experienced.]

Magus Firecow, is in the same boat. This is a very involved thread
and he doesn't want step on any toes. He is moved to respond by
the following:

> The purple man nods, slowly. "That's kind of why I tried to strip
> it down to basics, and always come back to: 'I exist, and someday I will
> not exist.' -- something that can either be terrifying or comforting. In
> a way, it makes 'existence' a gift of sorts -- I mean, hey, I might
> *never* have existed at all, so the fact that I exist, even temporarily,
> is a plus! An opportunity, a chance, an experience, that didn't
> *have* to occur, but did."

>
> "The fact that the final curtain _must_ come down on the play makes
> it no less a wonderful experience."

"Yes, there must be a FINAL curtain. I really don't think anyone
here truly understands what eternity means. Imagine existing for
so long that even your true love becomes mundane and boring. Wow.
The only reason life is really worth living is that it ends. If I
were immortal, I'd kill myself. Really. I mean what would be the
point of anything if you lived FOREVER. FOREVER is a lot longer
than anyone thinks. Long enough to experience EVERYTHING. ALL
possibilities. No surprises. Every agonizing moment the same as
the last. Yes there would be no pain, but there would be no joy,
there would be nothing. Living forever is worse than dying, much
worse because it means that you've never lived at all. Existence
is a gift. We are here, and we will be gone, and that is why it
is so special. Have you ever had an evening where you didn't have
anything to do? Made the evening kind of pointless. Well that is
exactly what eternal life would be. Pointless. Think about it,
I mean after you've accomplished every possible thing you could
ever want to and some things that you don't, what's left? Well I
mean, everything except for dying, 'cuz that's the attached string
the fine print, the cost of immortality. Nothing is left. Worse
than nothing, because you'd be aware FOREVER that there is nothing
left. If I had a religion, it would be one where the good people
die and the 'sinners' live forever. No that's not true, I would
not want to wish ETERNITY on anyone. I'm not saying that I don't
want to live a long life. A LONG LONG LIFE. I don't plan on
checking out until I have sucked every ounce of life out of this
existence and revelled in it. Not until after I've enjoyed myself,
and made things better for others. But I do intend on ending. On
dropping the final curtain. Otherwise, what point would there be?"

Magus Firecow.