NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/29577

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 20.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!prism!emperor!rpitts
From: [e-mail] (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:26:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology
Lines: 469

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Purdon) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Purdon) writes:
>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Purdon) writes:
>>>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>As for your restatement, the God of the Universe (even if you call
>>Him an imaginary being) is not an insignificant being.  Ladders, cats,

>Please support this assertion without reference to scripture.  Suggest
>empirical tests for demonstrating your god's existance.

Why do you insist that I discard the premier collections of books on the
subject to answer you questions?   Do you also discard the premier
collections of books on any other world leader, when you ask for proof?
Or do you ask for proof on the others?

Check an encyclopedia - they have information on Jesus of Nazerath.  In
fact, some have as much on him, if not more, than many other leaders
of that time or even modern time.

Again, I suggest to you that this Jesus was God in human flesh, as described
in the Bible.

>>and mirrors are in a different catagory.

>>>>I said that the fear, in this case, is to be understood as reverence for
>>>>the Supreme God of the Universe.

>>>And I said its just as stupid to revere an imaginary being as to be
>>>afraid of it.  The meaning you choose to apply to fear doesn't matter.

>>Is it just as stupid to fear some invading army as to revere them?
>>The point here is that you probably would fear the army and not per sa
>>revere them.

>When I examine responses such as this, I begin to believe that we are
>on opposites sides of a dark and deep conceptual chasm.  While it may
>appear that we speak and write the same language, it seems that we
>are unable to communicate.

You can only give such remarks, if you take the position of the disbelief
in a/the God or through the action of ignoring the God that does exit.
For if you weren't so set on that, you would at least listen to what I
write.

>The point I have been pursuing is not about the precise meaning of the
>word 'fear', but whether or not it is wise to apply an emotion such
>as fear to an entity that is purely imaginary.  Your response has been
>to engage in further semantic quibbles about the meaning of the word
>'fear' and to make an unsupported assertion that your god is not
>imaginary being.

Again, you ask me to prove something, but disallow my evidence.

As far as my semantic quibbles over the word 'fear', the main reason
we are in this discussion, is that you (Mr. Purdon) objected to my
use of the word by saying that the Lord was an imaginary being and
and thus you implied that it is senseless to fear or reverence Him.

>>God has freedom as His plan for those who come to know Him and His Son.

>Not the freedom to obtain an abortion.  Not the freedom to say and do what
>one pleases to say and so.  Heck, not even the freedom to poke fun at it.

Maybe the freedom you understand is different than the freedom God has
planned for those who follow Him.

>There's a funny thing about this word, 'freedom'.  It has a definition,
>and blind obedience to some supreme master of the universe does not fit
>it.

Freedom from sin and bondage to Satan, freedom to live upright and godly
lives, freedom to love others as we have been and are loved by God, who
gave Himself for us - this is the freedom God gives.

Freedom to you obviously means that you, yourself, are the only one or the
only thing that has any control or bearing on you destiny.

>It constantly amazes me that some individuals who reap the full benefit
>of living in a constitutional democracy seem to yearn with all their
>hearts to do nothing more than grovel on their bellies before a
>dictator.

You call Him dictator - we call Him Lord and Saviour.

>>You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.  God has

>Are you claiming that once you know the truth, you will no longer have to
>obey your god?

You claim familiarity with my Bible, but yet you don't know that Jesus
said that He is the Truth and that if you know the Truth you will
be free - in fact Jesus said that whom Son sets free is free, indeed.
He said that he came to give us life more abundantly, which is relative
to what ever state one is in or preceives themself to be in.  One can
have a more abundant life.

>>not given us the spirit of fear, but of truth, love, and a sound mind.

>If that is true, then why does it threaten us with hell?  And why is it
>that the most faithful individuals often sound like raving loonies?

He offers us eternal life - you decided to to keep yourself under the
wrath of God.

>Why is it that the slightest suggestion that you reconsider your beliefs
>produces a frenzy of mangled scripture from your lips like a mantra against
>evil?  All it does is convince me that you can not be reasoned with, and
>increases the likelyhood that I will not respond to your next post, out
>of disgust.

For the scripture, which you claim to be in a frenzy and possible
mangled, contains the basis of my faith, not that the scriptures are
to be worship, but they point to Jesus the Christ, who is the center
point of our relationship to God.  Jesus said some search the scriptures
for in them they think they have eternal life, but they REFUSE to come
to Him, to whom the scriptures point, and have eternal life.

Much less, scripture is of worth in correction, rebuking, and teaching.

If I have internalized it as part of my belief system, why is it any
different than the words you put out as part of your belief system???

Is the source of the words or the use of the words a problem for you?

If you don't want to respond, that's fine.  If you are comfortable
in your belief system, then you shouldn't have any trouble responding.

>>The Bible is a collection of 67 books written by multiple authors over
>>hundreds of years.  It records the beginning events of the Christian
>>faith, from it founder through the early church and it leaders.  It does
>>not gloss over problems, as others writings could.  It tells about
>>sin in the peoples lives, it tells of disagreements, and many books
>>(which are by different authors) proclaim the divinity of Jesus.

>Perhaps you misunderstand.  I'm familar with your bible, I just don't
>find it convincing.

Understood.

>>We see today the movement that was began, as recorded in the Bible,
>>in the lives of people and organizations which are devoted to the
>>message and the messenger of the Bible.  Can you trace back from
>>today and show where the fiction came in play?  When did this
>>fiction become fact in people's lives, if it is fiction?

>There are enough contradictions in the text of the bible to suggest that
>it is not an accurate history, and there is a quite a lengthy list of
>such floating around the net.  It does not really seem necessary to
>try to isolate a single moment when fiction became embodied in the
>text when such contradictions exist.

I think it would be of merit to your cause to point it out.  However,
my point was that the Bible is a recorded history and that especially
in the NT we have a series of events that tie in rather close to
much of other well recorded historical events and it could be possible
to dispute the founding of Christian as recorded in the NT, if it
could be disputed.

Are the existing contradictions, to which you refer, such that the
theme or function of the Bible is completely useless?

>>>By the way, I don't think its stupid to admire a man because of his
>>>thoughts or deeds.  However, to admire someone simply because they
>>>have claimed (or it has been claimed on their behalf) that they are the
>>>human expression of an imaginary being is entirely another matter.

>>This is true - it is another matter, for many claim to be a or the savior.

>Sorry, but I don't need to be saved.  Such individuals can only prey on
>the insecure, and I am not one of them.

Jesus came to save those who were lost (sick) not those who need no doctor.
I don't claim to be perfect.

However, as Jesus said, if you claim to see, then your guilt is on you.

>>>>looking it up in a dictionary, didn't you?  WORDS HAVE MORE THAN
>>>>ONE MEANING - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY.

>>>And you avoid answering the question and engage in semantic quibbles
>>>even after I have explained that the meaning of the word fear is
>>>unimportant.

>>Which question have I not answered?

>Is it silly to fear an imaginary being?

I answered by pointing to Jesus of Nazerath (God in human flesh), as
mentioned above, but you discount that.

>>>>I believe I answered them - now answer my questions.

>>>As the author of the questions, I feel you have not.

>>Each side seems right until the other side has a chance to repsond.

>On the contrary, *I* seem to be right no matter how you respond :)

On the contrary, each man seems right in his own eyes, but God judges the heart.

>>If God is all-powerful and knowing, is it such a travesty to test someone?

>If god is all-powerful and all-knowing, there is no need for a test at all.
>In fact, if god is all-powerful and all-knowing, and it created us, then
>it alone is responsible for any flaws we might have.  A test under such
>conditions can only be an act of cruelity.

Trials and test can increase our faith and perseverance.

Back to the story to which you referred (Abraham and Issac, I believe).
If you read the story, you will see that even though only the two of
them went up on the mountain to sacrifice, that Abraham said before they
left that WE WILL GO AND SACRIFICE AND WE WILL RETURN.  It seemed that
Abraham had pretty good amount of faith on the way.

>It is you, as the proponent of the validity of the bible that must do what
>proving there is to do.

See above.

>>Why do you so insist that the Bible is false?  Could you name another
>>book that you have so questioned its worth?

>I could just as well ask why do you so insist your bible is true.  Is it
>because you lack the courage to face life as it is and the moral
>fortitude to do the right thing without the threat of hell?  Or is
>that you have been indoctrinated since shortly after birth and even
>now cannot escape the shackles placed on your mind?

You don't know my background.  If you wish to presume and so tell
it to me, then you may, but it would be honorable of you to first present
your background (e.g., what if any religious experience you have
had and if so, why you are so anti-god now.)

>As for the other books whose worth I've questioned, their names are legion.

Name two or even one.

>>Do you believe in any kind of a reward system, for the deeds one does
>>in this life?

>Why does one need to be rewarded for one's deeds?  I honestly don't
>understand why you feel the need for reward or punishment to force
>you to behave correctly toward your fellows.

I asked you a simple question about your beliefs and you have responded
by another question.  Is it safe to assume you don't believe in any
reward system?  Even the reincarnation guys do - I believe, they call
it karma.

>>>This statement would have more meaning if more priests had real jobs.

>>Real jobs are in the eye of the beholder, evidently.  For we see most
>>of them worth of their wages.

>Apparently you concede the point.

I conceed the point that the one who gives to another person, position,
or cause gives honor to that item.  I did not say that priest do not
have real jobs - that was your implication.

>>[>>>2...]

>>>You mean that god will be mad at me and put me in hell for making fun of
>>>it?  Is that what you are threatening?  If not, please explain the
>>>meaning of your sentence.  If so, then you only support my contention
>>>that you worship a being that acts like an asshole.

>>It supports the view that all have sinned and the wages of sin is death,
>>for all who do not believe, as it was for me, too, before I believed.

>Oh no, I guess you've blown a fuse again, since you're back to parroting
>verses from your bible like a mantra against evil.  Do you really
>think I have horns and cloven hoofs?

You parrot your 'imaginary being' statement as your ridicule of anothers
belief in God, don't you????

No I don't think you or Satan (not to say you are similar) have horns or hoofs.

>Or is it simply that you are unable to counter my point and not honest
>enough to admit it?

I was not countering your point, but affirming that all have sinned and
the wages of sin is death, unless you believe in God's Son.  This
affirmation was the confirmation of your statement, but from a different
perspective.

>>>>>3. Why if god is so powerful, why does it let its churches burn down?

>>>>Does the church or the church building burn?  I think you missed the
>>>>meaning of what the church is - it is the called out ones.

>>>Back to semantic quibbling, I see.  Well then, if it was so powerful
>>>would it let its church building's burn down?

>>I was trying to point out the misconception of the building beingh
>>the church.

>>I don't know why God lets church building burn, specifically, but again
>>it is just a building and it will burn.  The bigger question for
>>some is why do people suffer.  We are taught that the trials we face
>>are working good as it increases our faith and perservence.  Much

>So god starves little children to death in Africa to increase your
>faith and perservence. If god really wanted you to have alot of
>faith and perservence, why couldn't he simply wave his magic wand
>rather than taking it out on a bunch of kids?

Have you assumed that the physical death or whatever of someone is
the greater problem?  Is this not more based on one's belief of God
and eternity?

>Or to put it another way, why is there no mana in Ethiopia?
>
>>less we aren't to thing it strange when we have problems.  It is
>>better to suffer for doing good than evil - Jesus even warned us that
>>the world will hate us, for it hated Him first.
>
>You know, I've found that if you treat a person right, they generally
>don't hate you.  So how are you treating people that causes them to
>hate you?

I preach the Cross of Jesus Christ - do you love that?

>>>>>4. Can god make a foot so big, it can't stick it in its mouth?

>>>>I'll let you talk to God about this one.

>>>Since I don't talk to imaginary beings, I guess I'll never know unless
>>>you are willing answer on its behalf.  Think of yourself as Richard
>>>Pitts, Jim's messenger to god.

>>Fine, if you would like me to be.  However, we are told that there
>>is only one mediator and that is Jesus the Christ.  We all can have
>>access to God the Father through Jesus, but I'll see how much I can help.

>Then why don't you ask Jesus the next time you see him to ask god if it
>can make a foot so big that it can't stick it in it's mouth?

Isn't this a red-herring - why would God be tasked to create/design
something he couldn't solve?

>By the way, would this be Oral Robert's 900-foot Jesus?

Oral has gotten a little off.  The Apostle Paul said in
Coloassians 2:18-19, that we are not to be taken in by someone who
has claimed to seen visions/angels and has gotten puffed up in his
fleshly mind and so has become seperated from the Head, which is
Christ.  Here and as are in most NT books the authors are warning
about avoiding hersy.

>>>>>It certainly seems to me that god can be mocked, as evidenced by the
>>>>>above.  And if your statement was meant to imply that I shouldn't
>>>>>mock god because it would get angry an hold a grudge and maybe do
>>>>>something nasty to me, like stick me in hell, well if god can't
>>>>>take a joke or four, then this is just more evidence that it acts
>>>>>like an asshole.
>>
>>I guess the lack of reverence for some things may not be tolerated
>>by God very well.  However, it seems your statements are more of your
>>belief than of a joke.
>
>Clue time.  Imaginary beings are harmless.  Its humans that say they
>follow imaginary beings that get all huffy about such things.  And
>since such humans are the ones who create the mythology, is it any
>wonder that the construct has such attributes?

What did we create?  The man Jesus of Nazerath????  His death???

>>And really the judgement has had some light shed on it, for, as above,
>>all have sinned and the wages of sin is death.  The position of not
>
>All have sinned?  Then I guess those aborted fetuses only are getting
>what they deserve, right?

You ignored the judgement part.  For we all will stand in the judgement
and give an account of what we have done.  We will be judged with
the light we have been given - fetuses don't have much (any) light,
do they?

>>>>realized that the opportunity is there for you not to get it in
>>>>the end and this opportunity is available to ALL who believe.
>>
>>>Guess I'm not the sort to toady to an asshole.  One would have to
>>>be completely morally bankrupt to enjoy "heaven" knowing that in
>>>"hell" people are suffering infinite punishment for finite
>>>transgressions.
>>
>>One will know as one is fully known, when one gets to heaven.  I understand
>>that to mean that we will understand what happened to us here on the
>>earth and why people did what they did and why they are where they are then.
>
>Big deal.  Nearly no evil that one could do in the span of one's life
>can be worthy of infinite punishment.  I stand by my statement.

Infinite punishment of what magnitude?  What about Hitler???

>>>According to Tommy Kelley, everything is a religious belief, and there are
>>>boneheads out there who even claim atheism is a religious belief, so I
>>>suppose she does.

>>I would tend to agree with Tommy.

>Tommy Kelley is such a bonehead that many now prefer to insult him
>rather than attempt to reason with him.  If you're another one of
>these "Everything is a religious belief" guys, this will probably
>be our last conversation.

>>>>pregancy to term, she may find you so, however, wouldn't it be
>>>>better if both wanted to bring a new life to the world to love it?

>>>Get a clue.  It's the right to choose that's important, not the
>>>choice itself.

>>I disagree.  Both are important, as it is with spiritual things, but
>>the right choice is of greater and possibly eternal merit.
>
>Then why not let the woman make it?

Do men or women always make the right choice??  I believe you can look
in our jails, streets, courts - practically anywhere and see that people
don't make the right decisions all the time.  That's why we have
child abuse, wife abuse, husband abuse, murder, theft, greed, pride, etc.

>>>>>>[e-mail]       |
>>>>>>Atlanta, GA                --|--
>>>>>>                        -|-  |  -|-
>>>>>>                         |   |   |
>>>>>You know, they look better soaking in urine.

>>>>Your choice - the above crosses are a symbol of Christianity and I use
>>>>them as such.  If you want use them in another way to represent your
>>>>views, you can do so.

>>>What a humorless drudge you are!

>>I take somethings serious, as others do, too.

>Does this mean you and your friends (and god, too, I imagine - yeah, I
>crack myself up sometimes) are going to come beat me up?  Or will you
>wait until I'm dead and then ooh and ah as clever tortures are applied
>to my soul in hell?

I believe the place has been or is being prepared for those who follow
Satan and his angels, but you don't have to go there.

>>You fail to understand the great disgrace you try to cast on someone
>>else's views by your statement, whether in fun or not.
>
>You fail to understand that an imaginary being cannot possibly take
>offense.

Is an imaginary thing of no value???  What about love, air, a touch?

You can see evidence of them, but can you see them?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

--
[e-mail]       |
Atlanta, GA                --|--
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |