HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:53:38 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <11065@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>
>   Then would you care to explain to us in painfully exquisite
>   detail exactly what kind of rebellious child deserves death?

>   Flames pending.

Oh, please, give the barbarians a break!

(1)  The passage does not say "child" as in "young and innocent" but
"child" as in "of the family and authority of the father".  In, for example,
the Roman republic and empire, the head of the family (paterfamilias) had
almost total authority over his children NO MATTER HOW OLD THEY WERE until
he died.  The principle is similar here.  Note that a "young and innocent"
child is not going to be a profligate and a drunkard!  Unless I am gravely
mistaken (which is always possible), this section of Deuteronomy refers to
punishment of a legal and probably physical adult who is rebellious against
his family head.  Get this image of 10-year-olds being stoned to death out
of your mind.  Hmph!  

(2)  LOTS of things deserved death in those days, not just in the eyes of
the ancient Jews but also in the eyes of the Romans, the Greeks, etc.  The
environment these laws were enacted for was harsh, and the concept of
punishment was not for rehabilitation or even emotional vengeance but
spiritual cleanliness.  That is, 'an eye for an eye' blots out the stain
of the unmerited evil; and crimes that pollute sacred authorities such as
the family must be cut out like a cancer.  One of the main themes in Jewish
law is ritual/spiritual cleanliness... this we why we see the phrase,
"you must purge the evil from among you" -- it is a phrase denoting ritual/
spiritual purification.  

(3) As a reminder, note again that the tone of the passage indicates a child
_habitually_ rebellious.  The passage does not say, "if your son, one day,
doesn't take out the garbage when you tell him to, stone him to death"; it
refers to someone who will not mend his ways.

(4) Anyone who claims Deuteronomy perfectly mirrors our own morality without
injecting context and/or interpretation is being foolish.  Anyone who claims
it _should_ mirror our own morality may not be foolish, but has some work to
do.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God's math accuracy
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 10 Jan 1993 08:26:24 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

{Why does Bible list pi as 3?}

I don't know ancient Hebrew, but I strongly suspect that its number system
does not include decimals. Still, God could have at least given them the
22/7 approximation for pi (that is, if they had fractions...).

Of course, an omnipotent God (or even one that was just really, really,
powerful) could easily have taught the Hebrews a decimal number system (as
well as evolutionary theory, medicine, astronomy, etc.) had he wanted to.

Maybe he wanted to keep the primitives in their place? :)

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)

                               This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 08:06:22 GMT

In article <SCG.93Jan4185701@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>For example, hatred of homosexuals is not a Biblical theme.  Hatred
>>of homosex certainly is, which is not the same thing.  Don't go off
>>on some psychological tangent on me here-- THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
>>THING, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE.  How do I know?  Because I love
>>homosexuals and hate what some of them do.  If I can do it, it can be
>>done.  Jesus certainly had this attitude.
>
>i challenge your claim that you love homosexuals.  how do you show
>this love?

I treat them like I would treat anyone else.  This comes as quite a shock!
:-)  Last summer a gay co-worker could not believe that his homosexuality
didn't drive me away from our friendship.  I think he confided more in me
than any other person in his life, because he knew that I loved him and would
be there to hear him spill his heart to me.  I am not going to tell you that
I am this awesome lover of gay people, but I try.  Come to think of it, he
would try and disgust me every once in a while to see if I would start
rejecting him.  Didn't happen.

>i don't recall jesus ever saying anything about homosexuality...

No, but Jesus accepted the prostitute even though she was living in sin.
Thats not so amazing though since there isn't one person alive who isn't
living in sin. :-)  I don't want to argue about whether or not homosex is a
sin.  It is, but no more than anything else.  I cannot judge a gay person
when I know of sin in my own life.  That is between God and the individual.

>i will point out that the bible encourages the physical abuse of
>children, something which is said to cause psychological problems.

It doesn't.  Of course, if you define the slightest amount of physical pain
as "abuse", then I suppose it does.  I'm sorry, but a good spanking is not
abuse, and I have seen _many_ children who are _much_ worse off because they
know they can get away with anything.

   "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not
   depart from it." Prov. 22:6

   "Discipline your son, and he will give you peace; he will bring delight to
   your soul." Prov. 29:17

   "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the
   training and instruction of the LORD." Eph. 6:4

   "Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged."
   Col. 3:21

I have been on the wrong end of some pretty good spankings, and I don't
consider myself abused.  If you can get through to a kid without it, all the
better!

John M.
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Read any good books?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

Time to post another in my occasional series of book reviews. As usual,
it's in "bib" format.



%A George H. Smith
%T Atheism: The Case Against God
%I Prometheus Books
%C Buffalo
%D 1989
%X I was initially reluctant to get this book, since Smith is
best known as the co-editor of the libertarian journal
Invictus, and I thought that his political philosophy might
spill over into this. I needn't have worried.

Smith concentrates on the epistemological issues raised by theistic
belief, and makes a convincing case for an intrinsic incompatibility
between religious belief and rational thought "in the large". It's
interesting to compare the styles of (e.g.) Flew, Martin, Mackie and
Smith. The first three are clearly professional philosophers: Mackie is
the most elegant and lucid writer, Martin is the most scholarly and
detailed, and Flew is most willing to consider the issues from a
variety of positions (see, for example, his debate "Does God Exist" with
Mieses, which rambled all over the philosophical map). In contrast,
Smith comes across as a top-notch counsel for the prosecution, laying
out his case and exposing the holes in the defence position with
merciless precision. He tends to nail an issue down with the simplest
argument possible and then move on: if you are interested in the
history of a topic, and the variety of ways it has been presented and
refuted, you should read Martin instead.

Smith vehemently rejects the agnostic and skeptical positions. He
argues that all knowledge and belief is contextual and probabilistic,
and that universal skepticism "cannot be maintained without
contradiction and ... commits ... the 'infallibilist fallacy' - i.e.,
the equation of epistemological terms such as 'knowledge' and
'certainty' with a standard of infallibility, which is completely
inappropriate to man and to the science of knowledge in general."

Highly recommended.


---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dreamerb@maths.tcd.ie (Dara Breathnach)
Subject: Catholic church and prophylactics.
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:52:58 GMT

Bernt Budde asks how anyone but a fanatic can oppose the use of
prophylactics.......

My opinion is that the religious beliefs of many people are
subverted to lead them to the conclusion that prophylactics
are evil. However, I would be cagey of such terminology as
"fanatic", as many of my religious acquaintances who are normally
fairly rational, would have this belief.

When I was in primary school (I attended a Roman Catholic school 
run by the Louis order) the rationale we were given for the
sinfulness of contraception generally was that every time a contra-
ceptive was used one might be preventing the creation of a future
Pope. This was the standard line with the order of nuns who taught
me, and I believe it was widespread in religious orders. Very few
of my generation held to such a belief for long -- most of our
parents didn't accept it either, as evidenced by Ireland's falling
birthrate (which has been plummetting since the 1970s), but for those
now in their 50s and 60s this alone was a hugely emotive argument.
At that time, education beyond primary school level was confined to
a social and academic elite, so people tended to accept what education
they got, without learning to question it. It is this age-group
who are the most right-wing on the subject of sexual politics
(although there are some pressure groups with far lower average ages),
and who at the moment have the highest representation in the political
process.

This is partly why Ireland is still seen as very conservative on "moral"
issues. It is a little misleading: contraception is now available to all
over the age of 17, though almost exclusively through pharmacies.
(And funny enough, condom vending machines are still illegal: this is 
apparently because teenagers < 17yrs old might have access to them. A
peculiar anomaly, as the age of consent is 16 -- you're not legally
entitled to be sexually responsible until you are 17!) 

Does anyone from other religious backgrounds know if that religion
has a similar attitude to contraception to that of the Roman Catholic
church, and if so, what is the most commonly given rationale???

Dara.
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:30:23 GMT

Why is it that everyone believes that it was God who did the "original sin"?  
Was Adam a mental robot as well as Eve, that God sat up in heaven with his 
control switches and forced them to do something?  If we're going to assume 
Adam and Eve, then must we not also assume a perfect beautiful Garden, known as
Eden?  
As to God not "atoning" for all of humanity, the beauty is that His payment is
sufficient to cover all of humanity, if they want it.  God is not a Divine 
Rapist, He does not force is love on everyone, He gives them a free choice.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25634 talk.religion.misc:25801
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:20:39 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>>If they allow christians to meet, then they have to allow the other
>>religions to meet. If the result of the christian meeting is handing
>>out leaflets, then they have to allow other religions to hand out
>>their tracts. How many christian parents would like it when little Johnny
>>brings home Islamic literature from school?
>
> What's the big deal?  I (an evangelical Christian) have two different
> translations of the Qur'an, and a basic introduction to Islam.  There is no
> danger in those books...any more than there is in the Bible.  They are on
> my bookshelf, right next to various theology texts, bibles, etc, etc.

In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home tracts
from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the Church of Satan?
The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The Children of God?


mathew
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Is Randal Terry homosexual?
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 11 Jan 93  17:43:34

8 January, 1993
 
The  founder of the Christian hate group "Operation 'Rescue'"  was  on
CNN today. His cult was "protesting homosexuality," which amounted  to
standing in a street yelling at people.
 
One  woman,  a lesbian, tore Randal a fresh poop-chute by  asking  him
several dozen sharp, decisive questions that he was utterly unable  to
answer  concerning his ad hoc, bigoted assertions. Randal  had  enough
intelligence   left  from  the  damage  caused  by  his   self-imposed
brainwashing  and  Christian occult indoctrination  to  beat  a  hasty
retreat  from  this woman, fleeing into a passing cab where  he  could
lick his wounds. If he were not so morally and ethically bankrupt, one
could even feel sorry for him.
 
One  of  Randal's  assertions  is  that  homosexuals  -choose-  to  be
homosexual.  That  must come as a complete shock to most  homosexuals,
who  up  until  Randal  set them straight (so  to  speak),  have  been
homosexual  from  the  cradle.  Just  as  I  did  not  choose  to   be
heterosexual, nor do homosexuals suddenly one day wake up  and  decide
to  be  homosexual. When the woman asked Randal just  =HOW=  a  person
decides  to  be  homosexual, and if he knew anyone who =CHOSE=  to  be
homosexual,  he ignored the questions a dozen times, and then  finally
admitted he didn't know.
 
Randal  then  equated  homosexuality with suffocating  a  two-year-old
child  (and  other  lesser criminal activity). This  is  on  par  with
fascists who would be dictator--- when their claims have been  utterly
refuted  and demonstrated to be empty and invalid, they obfuscate  the
issue  by eliciting an emotional response. Randal cannot compete,  let
alone  defend  his  bold  assertions, using  logic  or  even  rational
thought,  so  he  went  for  the straw-man  argument,  which  he  then
proceeded to try and knock over.
 
The woman who was correcting his misconceptions didn't bat an eye, nor
did she let him pull such sophomoric stunts, but got him right back on
the real issues. I've never seen a woman bloody a man's nose quite  so
well, and yet never lay a glove on him.
 
Even  after such a sound beating, I suspect Randal will still be  with
us,  terrorizing pregnant little girls and women, leading hate  groups
into  criminal  activity,  and generally playing  the  sadistic,  evil
little man.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the Real Christians please stand up?
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:42:46 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan4.232157.5448@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>Re the title:
>
>	Sorry, an amazing number of us are hiding out.The best way to get  
>killed and be unable to continue underground ministry in a lot of countries in  
>the 10-40 window is to publicly admit that you are a Christian.

But you don't live in one of those countries.
In the USA, public admission of atheism has a number
of nasty side effects, such as unlikeliness of ever
holding significant elected office.  Admission of
xtianity has no such side effects.

If this is serious, please take your paranoia elsewhere.
If this is a joke, colleen forgive me.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:21:00 GMT

In article <93011.235149U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>, 
David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...

regarding a partial extract of a procedure meant as a whole.

The extract is enclosed and irrelevant in part without the context
between the I-am-now-choosing... to the I-am-now-choosing-again... 
delimiters sections of the posting. 

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Hanley.

-- Sdt

---< extract follows >---

>>otherwise, if you are actually convinced that there is no GOD? If I
>>believed there was no GOD, well --- I'd be planning how to cause
>>or be out causing "accidents," which change society and politics. Like
>>poisoning foods and derailing trains.
> 
>  So, you often get the urge to do this, and the only thing that stops
>you is your unbased beleif in this GOD person?  Interesting.  This just
>illustrates what a warped mind you, and religious fundementalists of
>your ilk have.  Remember, Hitler and Dahmer were very religious.
>Lotsa athrists I know 'ud never hurt a flea.  Base your babblings in
>fact please.
> 
>I could become rich, just by
>>jerking with the stock market,
> 
>  Go for it.  This should be funny.
> 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
>He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
>protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814
> 
>SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Yeshua the Man (alias Jesus Christ)
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:46:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan6.035437.18062@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) wrote:
> Perhaps I should end by giving Jesus the last word, or at least, I would
> if we could figure out what his last words were. John's gospel tells
> us it was a triumphant 'It is accomplished!'. Luke settles for a resigned
> 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.', but it is Mark's Gospel
> which gives the account which is closest to the event and which has a 
> chilling feel of authenticity:'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?!' My God,
> My God, Why have you forsaken me?! Now that sounds like the cry of a 
> simple faith-healer and preacher who got caught up in events too big for
> him. Every time I read it I feel sorry for the guy, and I think he
> would have despaired even more if he knew that he was going to get turned
> into a god. Hope you all had a happy Christmas.

I agree, of all the famous last words in NT, this is either unexplained,
or it makes sense. I think it depends on your level of faith in the 
religion, and this is sad, because the crying words of a last man
asking his God what went wrong is a very dramatic last scene.

Then again dying is easy, comedy is hard :-).

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Predictions: Soon moving to Newton DTS, bye bye.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25163 talk.religion.misc:25313 alt.pagan:15018
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:49:01 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

In article <5JAN199322080860@jane.uh.edu>, lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
(bunch of stuff deleted)
> She had the option too, of changing the channel.  But she was trying to take
> away people's right to even see the broadcasts.  Public television is not
> federally funded with tax dollars.  They are funded by business advertising.
> If there are enough people in an area that wish to see a christian sermon
> on television and the tv stations make enough money off of the commercials
> to support it, then WHAT RIGHT has O'Hare to tell anybody that they can't.

I don't know anything about the actual facts regarding this petition, but
if it did refer to Public Television, as in PBS, then you are quite wrong.
PBS most certainly is funded by the government, and therefore blatantly
religious shows ("Christian sermons") don't belong on it.

However, if O'Hare was trying to ban religious programming from broadcast TV
in general, then I agree she was way off base--that's censorship.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Book by Teeple
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:54:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan11.214255.8422@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick) writes:
>
>          I am curious if anyone here has read Howard M. Teeple's
>     book: How did Christianity Really Begin ?   I have it sitting
>     on my desk right now and am wondering how much time I should
>     devote to it.

I recently read Teeple's _The Historical Approach to the Bible_ and
_The Noah's Ark Nonsense_.  Judging by the way these books debunk much
of the mythology that believers wrap the Bible in, the one you mention
should be well worth it.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:12:22 GMT

"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:

>Also, since a fair number of god believers also read this newsgroup, I am 
>curious what would make them no longer believe that god existed.

What would make you believe that no-one named Pietr Arbuthnotfinkle
Levinwarkldom II ever existed?

My point: It is hard to think up proofs of the non-existence of an entity.

(However, as many atheists on this board claim to have previously been
theists, there obviously are quite a few theists who do have a non-belief
threshhold, whether they can articulate it or not.)

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan