Dear Ms Rixecker,
Thank you for your excellent, considered response on the religion
question. Although I have strong atheistic views, I certainly did not
envisage or wish for the kind of restrained acrimony this list has
seen as a result. However, you did rather slide out from under one of
the key questions as I see them, by a neat move from issues of
'truth' (ie literal truth) to story-telling, where clearly 'truth'
means something rather different. It wouldn't matter much, for
example, if Christians felt - as many do, in fact - that their
beliefs are really operative in the latter realm, so that biologists,
ecologists, et al can get on with their work (on issues of literal
'truth' regarding, say, human origins) while they tell each other
stories. The fictions by which we live our lives could then do their
magical work - which you describe - and not impinge on the other
serious business of natural philosophy. Trouble is, lots of them
don't, and insist that Genesis is the same -kind- of thing as 'The
Origin of Species'. Surely, although politically plurality is vital,
we still need some fairly reliable, coherent account of what is going
on in nature to set in front of those who would be only too happy to
see us tell each other heartening tales until the world goes to hell
in a handbasket. This account is not going to be a 'tale' but a
'truth'. To stand up for truth in these matters is to stand up to
those who think their control of power is a fair substitute for
truth. Remember, it was the Roman governor Pilate who said, 'what is
truth ?'
Christians who believe that Genesis not genetics tells the truth
about our origins are, I would suggest, dangerous to the ecology
movement. So far, no-one has really answered this claim despite all
the mud-slinging (including mine).
Yours,
Greg Garrard
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 24 18:50:37 1996
From: "G.GARRARD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Wales Swansea
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 01:55:13 0000
Subject: Re: Ms / Kyli / Mathews
Dear 'Kylie',
Thanks for your interesting post on male/female differences. I
actually have no trouble accepting that women are generally
intellectually and emotionally superior. My stepdaughter at age 11
compares favourably with me at age 13/14. There are clear differences
between my male and female students which favour the latter. This is
not something to be terribly pleased about, however. Here in South
Wales several hundred thousand underskilled, ill-educated and usually
unemployed men watch their former glory slip away with every passing
year, with every job taken by harder-working, more flexible women. A
minority of men cling on to power in the State and business, unfairly
shutting out women, while at the other end of society millions of men
are left without a role in the family, the state (other than the
dole) and the market. Men are being superceded in some respects, and
the process is likely to be as bloody, as unfair and as undeserved as
the exclusion and oppression of women.
As for modes of address, I would point out -when you've finished
lecturing me - that I don't usually use any person's first name
unless I know them personally. I don't go for cheap familiarity a la
MacDonalds etc. You caught me out in a gender inconsistency in this
respect once before, I apologised and started being consistently
tedious and formal all round. I will, of course, call you anything
you like, if you insist, but I would ask you to work a bit harder
before you call me 'sexist'. It's a cheap shot that I have done
little to deserve. Since we are to be polite to one another by using
the names we sign with, I look forward to your next response.
Yours, Professor Sir Gregory Burdett Garrard BA MA PhD KCMG
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 25 06:49:53 1996
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:00:34 +0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kylie Matthews)
Subject: Re: some Bible quotes
>> as i said earlier, i hesitate to identify myself with christians,
>>but i would challenge you to read some of these verses within context....
>>
>>grace
>
>I'm sorry, what IS the context for the homophobic statements in the bible???
>
>e ya,
>
>-michael
>
According to "Christianity, homosexuality and social tolerance" (a book)
these homophobic comments were inserted by the catholic church in the
C14th.
But how about all the anti-women stuff? I know that some say, well, you
have to know the context of Paul's letters. Oh come off the grass! Paul
was a sexist pig! He was a tax collector who later thought -whoops I
wonder if I'm going to hell?
Also it might interest ppl to know that ppl are still having the same sorts
of visions about god as they did in the bible. Ppl are still hearing the
voice of god. These ppl are in mental institutions. Pauls beh is not far
short or a paranoid schizophenic. Isn't it possible that people could be
basing there actions on a pack of raving loonies?
Kylie
(who takes religion as seriously as politics.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
