HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:06:53 GMT

jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder) writes:

>to critically think about what they are being told is fact.  Childhood
>should be a time to teach children to think clearly and logically.  When
>they have reach an age or stage of mental development that allows them to
>make their own choices based on their own reasoning, then let the different
>group present their case.  Otherwise, those who through logical thought,
>come to the conclusion that they can not believe in what they were steeped
>in since infancy often must question not only their beliefs, but their
>entire life up to that point.
> 
>Unforntunately, Christianity feels it can't take that risk.  Parental and
>church coercion are mandated. Coercion has to be far and away the most
>common method of recruitment for Christianity and any other organized
>religion. 

>> Reason and logic.  We are not Vulcans.  We have emotions and, yes, sometimes
>> feelings are not reasonable and not logical.  My faith is not based solely on
>> feelings and flowery passages.  Having been a sinner for 25 years and a believer
>> for 6 years, my faith is based on personnal experience.  I have felt God's
>> presence and heard His voice.  He is real!  He is real!  Jesus lives!

>Anyone who
>takes advantage of the trusting nature of children to further their belief
>system is beneath contempt.

But where would Organized Religion Inc. be without such methods, or any
other dogma, such as communism ? If say we taught kids to think freely
until they were say, 10 or 12 then let them decide on there own ? Or
then at that age, gave an open-minded class in school of all the
different religions and beleifs in the world, it would be interesting.

Now if I could just find such a country....

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25210 talk.religion.misc:25370
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:07:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C0G8wo.6Lu@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>I think you are looking at the passage in the wrong way.  The Torah was
>written in Hebrew so it is not written in the same style we Americans write
>in.  This seems to describe what kind of son would be rebellious and worthy
>of death.
>
>Link Hudson.

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

   Flames pending.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: why does Eire get so much press
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:58:30 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <bernt.budde-070193194741@macbug.udac.uu.se> bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde) writes:

>It's a bit strange meeting people and talking, knowing that at least half
>of them must be (from a pragmatic Swedish view) fanatics. But they don't
>*seem* so, from what I expect.

In my experience the only thing they get fanatical about is whether they've 
got enough turf cut to last the winter   ;-)

>Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC
             ^^^^
I wonder if we are somehow related?

        Never believe an experiment until it is confirmed by theory 
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Genital-grabbing
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:29:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:07:19 GMT
>FROM:   Mark Schnitzius <schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu>
>
>tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>
>>In article <1i2qqqINNhsr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>>
>>>	I think at several points in the OT (if my memory of bible
>>>class in HS serves me right) putting your hand between someones thighs
>>>was something they did to "seal" a promise, I think Abraham had ordered
>>>a servant to make a promise and told his servant to put his hands between
>>>his legs while making the promise...
>
>>Yes. Think of the word "Testimony" -- an oath sworn on the testes.
>>This concept was apparently not unknown to the Romans either.
>
>So, does 'testament' (as in 'New Testament') have the same derivation?
>
>mark

YES, THE WORDS

TESTICLE, TESTIFY, TESTIMONY, AND TESTAMENT ALL DERIVE FROM THE SAME LATIN
ROOT, "TESTIS"

Yea Onan was an idle man and there were many things in his fathers house
that gave him idle thoughts; as long fruits and vegetables, wineskins, and
raw meat.  These he would ponder and toy with and more often than not...
HE SPILLED HIS SEED UPON THE GROUND!

   - Book of Onan 3:1-2
     from
     Not The Bible (Containing the Good Ol' Testament and the Neo-Testament)

THE BALL'S IN YOUR COURT NOW!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:04:49 GMT

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >

>But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.
>Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
>knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
>all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  
>   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
>Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
>choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  
>    Maybe I'm being too simplistic.  I don't post too often but I am a firm
>believer and I just couldn't stand by silent in admidst this debate.  I don't
>mean to flame anyone.  After all, Jesus came into this world to save not to
>condemn.  And in His likeness, I would not do the same.

This is my major objection to Xianity.  It's a double-bind.
Psychologically, it offers both condemnation and salvation.
It tells you you're damned, but on the other hand, here's
the way out.  This is POISON, pure and simple.  Everything
we know about mental health says that this is an unhealthy
belief system.

A system offers redemption that is *external*, then it
can maintain control over its adherents.  And that is
the intention.  Good psychological health requires the
ability to accept oneself by oneself.

Read some Jung or Joseph Campbell.  Any religion that
externalizes a godhead is at a primative stage in
human development, including literal (fundamentalist
and evangelical) Christianity.

>    I welcome your response.

Here it is.  Read some of the books others have referred
to here, such as Cohen's book, and let us know if it made
any impact.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: The Effect of Relgion 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:32:23 GMT

In article <SCG.93Jan5232029@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>
>the only way you can tell if someone is religious is if they wear
>identifying clothing or jewelry except that doesn't always work...

Actually, it hardly ever works.  If you watch enough TV, you notice
that religiious clothing or jewelry is an up and coming fashion
statement.


>The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
>give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
>	-- Abraham Lincoln
hmmm...

Did you get this from the same flawed quotation book as the one that
purports Jesus saying "I give you a new commandment that you love
one another" and leaves it at that, out of context?

The following are also attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

[farewell address to Springfield as he leaves for Washington/presidency]
...I now leave with a task before me greater than that which rested
upon Washington.  Without the assistance of that Divine Being who
ever attended him, I cannot succeed.  With that assistance, I cannot fail.(1)

[in address of the slavery issue]
...I know I am right, because I know that liberty is right, for
Christ taught it, and Christ is God...I may not see the end, but 
it will come, and I shall be vindicated and these men will know
that they have not read their Bibles aright...(2)

[sometime around his Second Inaugural Address]
...The Bible became my constant companion as president.  I told Mr. Speed,
my close friend who was somewhat of a sceptic, "I am profitably engaged
in the reading of the Bible.  Speed, you are wrong.  Take all of this
book upon reason that you can, and the balance on faith, and you will
live and die a happier man."  (3)

[when his son Willie died?]
...But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our
soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ.  Yes, I do
love Jesus...(4)

...I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming
conviction that I had nowhere else to go. (see 3)

References:
1. "The Lincoln Home" (Pictorial History and Guide Book)
2. Johnson, William J.  Abraham Lincoln, The Christian, p 65-66.
3. Johnson.  p 148.
4. Johnson.  p 172.
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:12:26 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <parsons.726763217@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>[Deletions.]
>>>but Jesus Christ is the only truly begotten Son of God (note the capitals).
>
>><sigh>  Once more.  Why is he the only one?  Why couldn't your god
>>have truly begotten as many Sons as he liked?
>
>Sigh.  Read Romans 5:18-19 and 6:10.  Actually read all of Romans 5 & 6.  
>God only needed one Son.  He didn't need two or three--just one, thank you.

Sigh. Why do you think that quoting the bible proves anything?

>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Chris Lee                    |  Biblical contradictions are still |
                             |  contradictions even if you choose |
                             |  to ignore them.                   |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:27:20 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
|> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
|> 
|> >> What are the reasons for emotions?
|> >
|> >	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
|> >understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
|> >cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
|> 
|> I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
|> let's discuss this.  Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be
|> honest.  Example: I love my mother.  Because of that love, I would
|> sacrifice my life for her.  Obviously anti-survival for me.

I don't know if love is "anti-survival" or not, since I don't know
what you mean by that.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that a bonch of folks who
called themselves something like Sociobiologists managed to fit
a whole bunch of behaviour that we could loosely call altruistic
into a survival model.

It might be worth looking at.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:09:12 GMT

Robert Knowles <p00261@psilink.com> writes:

> FROM:   Robert Huss <rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU>
>>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism? 

>You are correct, it is not.  In fact, as an atheist, I think it is a
>total waste of time to attack Christianity.  We have a lot of work to
>to do to move atheism beyond its debating phase.  It is just good cheap
>fun for atheists to attack religion and a hard habit to break.

What would atheism be without debate?
True, it is good fun, but there are more reasons than that.  You may
be satisfied within yourself about the reasons for your atheism, but
there are some of us who are still trying to sort all these big 
ideas into a wholesome personal philosophy.  It is my experience that
debating the issues with both theists and atheists almost always
expands my view of the whole issue of existence.

In attacking Christianity I have learned much more about it than I
might have otherwise.  I am still strongly atheist, but I respect 
the personal effects of religious belief much more than I did.
I'm still getting to the other religions... I figure one at a 
time is enough.  :)

>Debunking religion does not disprove the existence of god.  We really do
>not have to disprove the existence of god.  We simply do not accept the
>existence of god until that existence is proven.

Instinctively I agree with this, but we need to ask ourselves 'What would
constitute proof?' in this case.  What *would* prove to you (or me)
that a god existed?  This has worried me recently, because I can't think
of a single objective proof.

The problem is that all our perceptions and thoughts are such a hopeless
mishmash of reason, emotions and biology that we can never be sure
just what is *really* going on.  Or rather, it is just because we are
aware of the mishmash that we can't be sure what is really going on.

Religious persons don't have these worries and I must say I envy them.

Hope I haven't got too far off the thread, here.

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25062 talk.religion.misc:25229 alt.pagan:14990
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:51:09 GMT

In article <12251@sorley.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <jhb.726199947@monet> jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:
><iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
><>In article <2B4771D7.12848@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
><>>Excuse me, but any church is MADE UP of Toms, Dicks, and Harrys, and
><>>even a few Janes and Marys,
><
><>No.  Not at all.  It is only the congregation that is made of them.
><
><And what is the difference between a church and a congregation?
>
>What is the difference between a company of shepherds (or butchers)
>and a flock of sheep?

Every single priest I've ever had in theology class, and I've had them
for 12 years, has specifically stated that "the church is the people,"
in EXACTLY those words.

Blessings,
Janis 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 11:58:33 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <adams.726596783@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>Why do some believers think that not mentioning religion at all is the
>>same as denying religion?
>
>It's not 'non-mention,' though.  There have been Christian critical
>programs on PBS.  But the ability of Christians to respond in the same
>media and same way is limited or non-existant.
>
> -Steve

 Really? When? I don't watch a lot of TV, but I would think I'd notice
something like that. Do you have any references?

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: why does Eire get so much press
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:48:26 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:56:59 GMT
>FROM:   Dara Breathnach <dreamerb@maths.tcd.ie>
>
[Sound and well-deserved thrashing by Dara Breathnach deleted...]

I never intended it to go to alt.atheism or alt.messianic.  I screwed up 
and it has turned into the post from hell.  I am extremely sorry, and my 
apologies to everyone in alt.atheism. and .messianic.  I had intended it for 
sci.skeptic, since "strife in N. Ireland (corrections noted)" seems like 
an extraordinary popular delusion that could be debunked straight from 
the numbers.

I even managed to post 5 (or was it 6?) consecutive posts, none of which 
I intended to leave my machine.  The very devil of a thread!  Absolutely 
out of control.

Again.  Sorry about the whole thing.

-jim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:57:01 GMT

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

>From everything I have seen, the Bible believer is generally a
>happier, more joyful, more hopeful, and more successful individual in
>life than the person who rejects Biblical advice and command.

actually, i've seen well-adapted, rational christians.  i've seen very
badly messed up christians.  i've seen well-adapted, rational
non-christians.  i've seen badly messed up non-christians.  i haven't
noticed any perceptible correlation between being well-adapted and
being christian.

perhaps it's because you don't meet the well-adapted non-christians,
or you never find out they're non-christian?

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

--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world,public
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:36:37 CST

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
: 
: Why would most of us choose Hell?  Does this speak of something wrong with the human psyche rather than something wrong with God?  He made us in His image.  He
: gave us life eternal in paradise.  Then A&E mess it up for all humanity by eating
: of the forbidden fruit.  And so God gives us a second chance through His Son,
: Jesus Christ, so that anyone (I mean ANYONE) can have life eternal.  But do we
: take it?  Not!  Most of mankind prefers to go its own way.  What more do you want
: God to do?  He has gone the second mile for us but most of us still refuse to 
: meet Him halfway.
: 
: God loves, Man kills.    [ and on, and on,, and on,,, and on,,,, and ]

Aw man Malcom enough already ok!  I give, I give.  Now will you PLEASE go find someone 
else to pester and save our bandwidth.  You aren't going to convince or *save* anyone 
here and it's become VERY obvious that your long gone in your god thing and we can't 
help you either.  Sometimes you've just got to say uncle.  (that or please just post
to talk.religion.misc only as I only follow alt.atheism)
 
Thanks,
  Jeff West
  
p.s. oh yea and get a computer with a 'Return' key.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24889 talk.religion.misc:25085