home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!ofa123!David.Rice
- From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
- Subject: Character Inversions
- X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
- Message-ID: <n0efat@ofa123.fidonet.org>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 16:26:56
- Lines: 82
-
- Who: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
- ID: 1992Nov16.024312.22635@hfsi.uucp
-
- Hi! Back for more wasted "bandwidth."
-
- DR> "Sin: failure to follow the dicta of the rich, powerful,
- DR> ruling elite, whom use the illusion of divine authorization.
- DR> Do you have a better, valid definition? 'Sin' is arbitrary,
- DR> and subject to change without notice.
-
- JA-FSO> "How about Sin: 1) A willful violation of some religious
- JA-FSO> or moral principal."
-
- See, you agree with me (BIG Smile!). That is exactly how I defined
- it above, only using different words. Religious or moral principals
- are arbitrary, dicated by the ruling class. Morals are external
- codes which modify behavior, and they need not be reasonable nor
- rational, they need only CONTROL.
-
- That's why I conduct myself ethically, not "morally." Ethics are
- INTERNAL modifiers.
-
- JA-FSO> 2) Any wrong or evil act.
-
- Both events are arbitrary, depending on society, culture, and
- time. Yesterday's duties are tomorrows evil acts.
-
- DR> Sure. Most Christian churches think "homosexuality" is a "sin."
- DR> This, however, is not about what is "right" and "wrong," but an
- DR> issue of CONTROL. A few Christian churches consider abortion a
- DR> "sin," but it is also an issue of control. That is why I likened
- DR> most religions, and specifically Christianity, as a control-freak.
- DR> Jerk a person's sexuality and watch them dance!
-
- JA-FSO> But you can say that about any moral precept. To someone who
- JA-FSO> has no intentions of honoring it, it is just an issue of
- JA-FSO> control. To others, it is God's way of showing us the best
- JA-FSO> way to behave."
-
- Well, there's the problem. It isn't God dictating policy--- it is
- people speaking for God dictating policy. God is irrelevant.
-
- [cut for space]
-
- JA-FSO> We were talking about whether it is healthy to supress
- JA-FSO> natural desires which you stated that Christianity did
- JA-FSO> and was therefore unhealthy. I merely pointed out that
- JA-FSO> it is not only Christianity that supresses natural
- JA-FSO> desires but society as well. Why do you not call it
- JA-FSO> unhealthy when society does it?"
-
- Because my biases and agenda (smile!). I admit it (no one here
- would think otherwise). Many "natural traits" that society
- suppresses -IS- harmfull, but someone here threw in the word
- "sin" with has religious connotations, so I addressed that.
-
- [major cut of "anti-theist lies 1 through 3" here. You are
- right, and I was wrong in making the assertions I did.]
-
- I feel that religions have the POTENTIAL to do much better
- good in society, but they gravitate to harm (the "lowest
- denominator" factor). This harm is based upon dictating to
- other members of society instead of to themselves. It is so
- much easier to tell another how to live ideally than to live
- that life oneself. Christianity, the broad spectrum I observe,
- addresses external concerns where they are not wanted and don't
- always belong, instead of internal concerns which they CAN do
- something about if they so choose--- this is where the concept
- of "sin" is useful, because it helps control and externalize
- the forces Christians find within themselves, but would rather
- see in others ("Character inversion").
-
- I'd like to see this topic die off, or moved. However, perhaps
- you would give a short list of valid "sins" (i.e. religious
- dicta, not political agenda).
-
- JA-FSO> John G. Ata - Technical Consultant |Internet: ata@hfsi.com
-
- All the best,
- D-rice
-
- --- Maximus 2.00
-