HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & Sin
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:18:09 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep8.172756.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu says:
>
>People are not judged now, nor when they die.
>All sins now are forgiven.
>We will ALL be resurrected again, atheists included.
>The damned will die a second death.

Why don't we rename this thread? The name no longer fits...
Okay, now to the important part. Question: you didn't qualify this first
part as belief: I wonder why? Just because it's the part you can find in
a book doesn't make it right. As for judging, I get judged all the time
by rabid christians, especially the preachy kind who assume that since
you aren't cheering him on, you must be a perverted sinner...

>I believe in this second life, atheists will see Christ in all his glory,
>cannot doubt what is in front of their eyes, will be able to experience what
>his true love means, rather than what other people try to communicate as, AND
>WILL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS not out of fear but out of love.

This doesn't fit in with your first part...if all sins are forgiven,
then why bother asking for them to be? Anyway, your beliefs are...
interesting, but why bother with your religion if it's all going to mean
nothing? Why doesn't your god get it over with? What's he waiting for??

>Beware! It is one think to be a skeptic, it is another to
>disbelieve.  The skeptic will believe, the disbeliever will curse. Many do
>not see because the light is gone from this world, many do not see because

As far as I know, most of the so-called "atheists" online here qualify
their disbelief as more like a skeptic's. Also, The skeptic doesn't just
"believe"...he trusts his eyes.

>  Never hate a Christian, for he is only
>trying to help you, and always keep looking for faith, for the pursuit
>shall keep your eyes open.

?? Why should I "look for faith?" I'd rather look for things to know,
instead of things to believe in. I don't hate most christians, as most
of them aren't rabid...but the line brings to mind a song...
"Never be rude to an Arab..."

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Complaints
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:37:46 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

    Why can't I followup to the BofA Can Now Support... thread?  It keeps
telling me there are no authorized followup groups.

    Also, why do I keep getting responses before the original message?

Karl Magnacca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:56:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.213832.23467@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>:After all, it would seem to me that if one indeed believed
>:that homosexuality was sinful and imperilled another's soul,
>:he would have a duty to inform him of that, at the very least.
>
>This isn't very sound Christian theology.  There aren't special
>sins that disqualify you as a saved person.
1) Your opinion on whether it's good Christian theology is on
zero relevance. We're discussing the position of someone who might
believe such a thing.
2) The claim that that is not sound theology is in fact quite
controversial.
a. It is generally believed that some sins are worse than others.
believing otherwise is the Jovinian heresy.
b. Paul does say that "neither foo, nor bar, nor... shall enter
the kingdom". What he means by that is certainly open to question.
Whether homosexuality is a subset of that is certainly open to
debate. I'm not really interested in the malakoi/arsenokoi debate
right now, but I think you could certainly make a case for this
passage contradicting your theology.
c. There is some question about whether or not incorrect theology can
result in one's damnation. Certainly this was commonly believed at
some times in history. If you don't believe me, compare the anathemas
at the end of many of the early creeds(including what is often called
the Creed of Nicea, which is slightly different from the modern
Nicene creed and ends in language damning Arius to hell.)
If one accepts that homosexuality is a sin, which was stipulated
as a precondition above, then one must believe that homosexuals
are either atheists, weak christians, or heretics(since they don't
accept that homosexuality is a sin). If heresy leads to damnation,
then regardless of one's opinion on b. at least the first and the last
will be condemned to hell.
d. The precise status of those who voluntarily choose to sin, knowing
that it is a sin, has never been clear in Christian theology. For
you to attempt to establish it by fiat is absurd.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:41:27 GMT

In article <BuD8nJ.Kos@apollo.hp.com> stave@frost.apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave) writes:
>I heard about this on NPR.  There are two factions, one that believes
>it will be Oct 28 (I think) and another that says Oct 10.  Some of these
>people are dieting so they will be lighter and it will be easier for them
>to rise up to heaven.  I think the person being interviewed said that
>there were only a few thousand people believing this stuff.

EGAD!  I was afraid all those doughnuts and pizzas I've been eating would
send me straight to hell! :)

>
>I think I remember learning that there was a big fuss just before the
>year 1000 AD - something about the millenium and the end of the world.
>I'll bet there will be a similar full at the year 2000.
>
>Joel Stave
>stave@apollo.hp.com

Yes.  There have also been surges in endtime cults whenever large
natural disasters occurred, like the 14th century Black Death,
or during major wars (Mongol invasions, Napoleonic wars, etc).
These cults were usually based on solid biblical scholarship.
All were wrong.  By their fruits ...

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:48 GMT

(mathew) writes:
>>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>>> Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>>> such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>>
>>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>>such a pompous claim as "there are no square circles"?

(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>This isn't fair and you know it, Matthew.
>The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
>an empirical question . The claim that square circles
>do not exist is a logical one.
>The comparison is therefore invalid.

Actually I think it is a fair question. A constructivist would argue
that the "claim that square circles do not exist is a logical one" is in
fact an empirical question, in that to prove this claim you must produce
an object satisfying the property "circle" and one satisifying "square"
for the claim to be proven. And this is emprical.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: End of the World... US only, apparently
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:29:46 GMT

pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>but two thin lines extending lower than the rest of the barcode
>IS a six. two thin lines is the code for a six.
>they DO extend below the barcode, that is why they are CONTROL codes.
>does anyone know the ISO for this thing?

[apologies for earlier saying the delimiters were solid bars; they are 2 lines]
[I didn't have a barcode handy, it was from memory]

They don't actually decode as sixes.  Bar codes for the same digit are
different on the other side of the center bar (reflected, so you can scan
it either orientation).  The "6" stuff is just baloney, they are delimiters.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:10:11 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BuC8E9.uJ@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.002930.22158@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>>We Aussies can beat that. There's a pack of lunatics based in Sydney who
>>are sure the Rapture is coming *next month*. Their publicity is greatly
>>mirthful, and worth reproducing in full:-
>>(I will try to reproduce their idiosyncratic layout and syntax)
>>
>>THE FINAL WARNING OF GOD
> 
> good gads, the nineties are going to be strange.

   *Going* to be strange???

Karl
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:27:35 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <BuLxKy.Bq1@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
[research on the mark of the beast deleted]

i think this is the most rational (but least fun) explanation.
i enjoyed showing this to fundies but now i cant in good faith.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrificesdir
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:00:16 GMT

In article <192t25INNhqh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
}Not all Christian churches are completely loony.  The Catholic church,
}while it has more than its fair share of nut cases (most of which are
}in the College of Cardinals) is fairly reasonable.

How do you identify a non-loony BEFORE it is "too late" (in the case of the
example previously discussed, the first such encounter wuld be fatal)?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bird Wedges and ur-vile wedges
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92  21:54:28

Tag1: Sue Bishop (sbishop@desire.wright.edu)
Tag2: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
 
[Hope I have attributed the following quotes to the correct
individuals.]
 
>AS> "Evolution is seen as a proven fact, which it isn't."
 
SB> "Evolution is accepted as both a fact and a theory. Maybe
SB> you'd better do a little more reading."
 
Or perhaps she/he could offer us an alternative to evolution
theory, instead of just making the negation assertion and
leaving it at that. . . "Typical."
 
>AS> Then, in the wedge migratory birds (cranes, swans, scoters,
>AS> geese etc.) there is an interesting solution: Birds help
>AS> each other to move to a wintering site, and in this order
>AS> the most powerful individuals must take the heaviest and
>AS> most dangerous tasks as leaders of the wedge. In this way
>AS> usually happens that those birds die more than normal
>AS> members in the wedge. That sounds silly, if you think of
>AS> the natural selection.
 
SB> "Didn't you recently post something about people needing
SB> more field experience? If you have done any studying of
SB> migratory fowls or even read much on the topic then you
SB> might have found out that the wedge leader position is
SB> rotated through the wedge. It's not always the same bird
SB> in the lead, they keep changing it as they tire."
 
The same is true for ur-viles; the lore master takes up the
point of the wedge, and when she/he falls, the next strongest
takes up that position.

--- Maximus 2.00
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:09:59 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
 <1992Sep10.164630.3629@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Will people please quit trying to define atheism? It's obvious that
there are many possible definitions for it, as has been shown. I think
that since the two terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are apparently
insufficient to define everyone's stand, we should discard them in favor
of some kind of numerical designation, the meanings of which could be
stored in the FAQ. OF course, we could coin new words instead...

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:15:58 GMT

> Well, if you're God, and you live in Kingston,....


Heretic! Don't you understand that Colleen is Our Lord God Almighty.

How dare you address your God Colleen in such an insolent matter with a
request to demonstate her Godly Talents.


God Colleen does not perform circus tricks to amuse mortals or have to
overtly appear to be manipulating human politics in a blatant God-like
matter merely to appease the unbelievers and blasphemers.

I pledge my soul to Colleen. Hail! Hail to thee Almighty! You have
revealed yourself to mankind and we will obey without question your authority.




HEH HEH HEH

"Kill a Christian every month for luck"

Bill Williams
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 11 Sep 1992 19:42:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


No, no, no! Let's get something straight! I'M God! (Well, actually,
the Messiah, which in my case isn't quite the same thing.) I would KNOW
who God was, and currently Her computer is down, so She's obviously not
the one posting on Usenet.

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:19:01 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <ksand-070992001731@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
>Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
>Date: 7 Sep 92 07:17:37 GMT

>In article <graham.715833183@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham
>Matthews) wrote:
>> (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>> >Imagine yourself as such a being. Wouldn't you, first of all, learn
>> >about which things you have to know and what consequences would this
>> >knowledge have? 
>> 
>> Jarek projecting his ideals onto God yet again! Jarek how do you know
>> what a God would do? You are just guessing.

>True, how could even deists try to understand an intelligence
>far more vast than theirs? Jarek, it's impossible. You could never
>figure out how this super-intelligent being ticks, how much you
>try.

>I think it's another nail in the coffin concerning understanding
>how omnipotence works. For me it's another good excuse why I don't
>want to get involved in figuring out how Gods think.

>Kent

>"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
>have one idiot helping to defend it."   [Paraphrased from Voltaire]
>-------------------
>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
>DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.

An undiscussable god might as well be no god at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.232915.28606@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>It is not stupidity to claim that A does not imply B, even if you don't
>>believe in A.
>Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that I don't believe
>in "not stupidity."

I could give a literal answer, but I'd like to point out instead that you're
mixing up your opponents.  I haven't said that I don't believe in morals.

(If you still want an answer, I am curious whether you don't believe in
stupidity either.  I am also curious as to what you mean by "don't believe";
do you mean that you don't think any can exist, or do you instead mean you
haven't _found_ one yet?)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:26:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)

YOu may very well doubt traditional Pre 1986 style C14 dating techniques
(I think all needed half a pound of matter). But in the past few years the
capabilities that exist I am told are VERY accurate compared to the crud
years ago.

But I totally trust these newer dating techniques.

It doesn't take a genious to add two and two together to realize that the
Shroud of Turin is a hoax of some form.


I can't believe people spent time arguing about it, especially because the
Catholic church played cautious all along and never said it was a sacred
relic.

I also can't believe people waste time arguing fundamentalist christian
complaints against the fact of evolution, Especially because in 1981 the
Catholic church published a press release saying that it fully concurred
with evolutionary mechanisms and that creationism should only be taken
metaphorically.


wasting time trying to discuss Science with Christians is ridiculous!


Jesus Is A Lie,

BWilliams
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Jesys & Sin
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:46:12 GMT

dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
: I would make one comment about all of the people's responses
: to Young's questions about forgiveness:

Oh no.  Our newsfeed has been out all week and apparently I missed
these responses.  It's probably too much to ask, but does anyone
have copies they could send me?  Should I expect a million messages
in response to this request? :-(

: People are not judged now, nor when they die.
: All sins now are forgiven.
: We will ALL be resurrected again, atheists included.
: The damned will die a second death.
: (end of Revelations)
: I believe in this second life, atheists will see Christ in all his glory,
: cannot doubt what is in front of their eyes, will be able to experience what
: his true love means, rather than what other people try to communicate as, AND
: WILL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS not out of fear but out of love.

You mean that atheists can get into heaven by accepting irrefutable
evidence which will be provided following their death?  Why would
anyone in their right mind refuse such irrefutable evidence?  Hell
couldn't exist under these circumstances.  If atheists can enter
heaven, then it seems to me that belief in God is just a psychological
crutch.  Since your immortal soul isn't at stake here, why waste time
on religion instead of enjoying life and providing for the material
needs of those less fortunate?

: Beware! It is one think to be a skeptic, it is another to 
: disbelieve.  The skeptic will believe, the disbeliever will curse. Many do 
: not see because the light is gone from this world, many do not see because
: their eyelids are pressed tight.  

I though you just said that disbelievers could make it into heaven
once they are given proof of God's existence following death.  If 
you mean skepticism in spite of post-death evidence, I don't see 
how this would be possible.  Could you give me a scenario?

: Never hate a Christian, for he is only
: trying to help you, and always keep looking for faith, for the pursuit
: shall keep your eyes open.

I don't hate Christians, only their sin. ;-)
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesys & Sin
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:27:56 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

I would make one comment about all of the people's responses
to Young's questions about forgiveness:

People are not judged now, nor when they die.
All sins now are forgiven.
We will ALL be resurrected again, atheists included.
The damned will die a second death.
(end of Revelations)
I believe in this second life, atheists will see Christ in all his glory,
cannot doubt what is in front of their eyes, will be able to experience what
his true love means, rather than what other people try to communicate as, AND
WILL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS not out of fear but out of love.
Beware! It is one think to be a skeptic, it is another to 
disbelieve.  The skeptic will believe, the disbeliever will curse. Many do 
not see because the light is gone from this world, many do not see because
their eyelids are pressed tight.  Never hate a Christian, for he is only
trying to help you, and always keep looking for faith, for the pursuit
shall keep your eyes open.
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:03:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <18octrINNqnl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>
>All I have to say about this one is, isn't there something in the Scriptures
>they claim to esteem so highly about 'you know not the day, or the hour'?
>Wouldn't that kind of immediately exclude all their predicted dates from
>being Time Zero, or what?
>
>-- 
>Jessica McGeary
>jmm25@po.cwru.edu

It would appear so, but it seems that nearly everyone who aspires
to believe in the "literal" bible is pretty selective as to which
phrases are to be taken literally and which are to be "interpreted".

My brother was taken in many years ago by some sort of endtime
preacher.  I read this guy's book (sorry, no reference) and
he spent nearly half of the book explaining how the verse
about not knowing the day or time does not really mean what it
says.  Some of the rationalizations were:  the verse does not
exclude knowing the month or year of the second coming; Jesus
was only saying that none of his contemporaries would know,
but those of us living later could figure it out.

This is a real fantasy land.  I once heard a minister (from
a non-fundamentalist church) say that the book of revelations
was the most evil book ever written, because of all the time
wasted analyzing and disputing its unintelligible rubbish.

>Case Western Reserve University
>Remember! Arguments should be FUN!

Agreed!  
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |