HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:43:04 MST

In article <1992Aug20.165054.5409@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> 
> [Simon's hilarious article deleted.  Thanks Jim, for sharing it
>  with us again.]
> 
>>Simon, cut the crap, OK?  As someone else pointed out, this post was
>>gated through Compuserve and the original posters will probably never
>>see your caustic wit.
> 
> That's ok.  I saw it.  I was entertained.  I thought it was the best
> reply of the lot.  I'm glad he posted it.

I admit it was entertaining, although in a ribald sort of way.  If it was 
the "best of the lot", then I "lucked out" since it was one of the two or 
three I read.

> 
>>Everyone (atheists and theists alike) would be a whole lot happier if
>>we all simply showed more maturity and completely ignored this type of
>>post to begin with.  Imagine the bandwidth savings -- one inane post
>>versus hundreds of equally inane responses!
> 
> What's wrong with this picture?  A fundie in alt.atheism telling us
> what type of articles are appropriate?

Who?  Me?  Fundie?   Com'on Doug, you can do better than applying 
misappropriated labels.  What if I labelled you as a godless-pinko-
commie-atheist?  Would that be an accurate assessment of who you are?

And if no one here is going to "clean out the barn", as Perot says,
"Somebody's got to do it."  :)
   

> 
> Anyway, back to the serious stuff.  I'm wondering Jim, if you have
> any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
> drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
> with it?

Yep.  That's it.  Just like its their perverse nature that makes
homosexuals break into churches and shout obscenities or pass out
condoms in schools, or just like its a natural consequence of atheism
that makes atheists so arrogant, conceited, and close-minded.  ;)

(SATIRE ALERT:  I'm not actually asserting these things about homosexuals
or atheists in general although its true of some of each.  The point is
that *people* can be obnoxious, perverse, arrogant, conceited, and
close-minded regardless of their beliefs, lifestyles, etc.)


> --
> Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

I find your opinions very enlightening.  :)

Regards,

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:46:39 GMT

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
: In article <24759@castle.ed.ac.uk>
: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
: 
: > Then again, you had the theory of evolution banned in some schools?
: 
: Not in recent times.  If you go back to the Scopes Trial, you can find
: examples of individual states banning evolution instruction in school,
: but in the last 50+ years, courts have routinely disabused states of
: the notion they can get away with this.

So what happens instead is that evolution is completely ignored
in the science curriculum to avoid any controversy.  I learned about
evolution the same way I learned about sex, in back rooms and on the
streets.  Needless to say, my understanding of both was severly warped
for many years.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.181452.17042@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
>>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
>>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
>>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
>>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
>>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic? 
>
>(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
>"uphold.")

You could be right.  I was speaking from memory.  I'm not sure I
know what it means to fulfill a law though.  Do you?  Anway, the
jot and tittle stuff still stands doesn't it?

>Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
>himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
>step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."

Well, I'm at quite a loss as to what to use for a definitive description
of Christianity.

>You logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
>stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
>Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?

I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
of Jesus?

>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>longer under the law, but under grace."

But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
who was God?  One might almost think that the religion has been
corrupt right from the beginning.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:47:54 GMT

In article <92233.093053RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>In response to Griff's statement regarding the course of celestial bodies:
>In the Qur'anic verse the word does not exclusively mean "circular" paths
>traversed by celestial bodies. And I did *not* say that either. By rounded,
>is meanst the path or trajectory traversed such that after some time the
>particle orbitting comes to the same point. As such, circular, elliptical
>and other such trajectories are included in "rounded."

In hyperbolic trajectories, the particles do not come to the same point
again.  Some celestial bodies travel in hyperbolic trajectories.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:00:26 MST

In article <Aug.14.00.44.18.1992.19112@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).
> 

[deleted - a good explanation of Leviticus.]

> 
> But despite these differences in where to draw the line, I think just
> about all Christians agree that there is a line:
> 
>  - that large portions of Leviticus are not binding on Christians
>  - that there are some principles that are binding on Christians,
> 	even if they are not described as being part of the Law
>  - that the NT is basic to finding out where the line lies
>  - that the Ten Commandments summarize much of what is binding on
> 	Christians, particularly when they are interpreted in the
> 	way that Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount
> 

As a Christian, I would certainly agree with these four points. 

[More good explanations deleted.]

> 
> The upshot of all of this is the Leviticus as a whole is not binding
> on Christians, because Leviticus is part of the Law of Moses.  This
> does not mean that Christians have no moral principles.  Furthermore,
> since the OT and NT God is the same, we should expect at least some
> similarity.  Some Christians try to deal with this by separating the
> Law into a portion that is moral, and is binding on everyone, and a
> portion that is specific to the covenant with the Jews.  The latter is
> often called the "ceremonial law".  Others say that morals must be
> based entirely on the NT.  While there may be some differences in
> conclusions, both approaches accept the Ten Commandments as a minimal
> set of standards that are still binding on Christians.

I also agree with this summary and conclusion.

Good post, Charles

Regards,

Jim B.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:20:50 GMT

In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
(Mike Cluff) writes:
|>Tired of bickering with people, I've decided to try reading the Whole Thing
|>(TM) in order to get some decent ammunition.  Which translation do you folks
|>think meets the best combination of scholarly translation and readability?  
|>

Beware the King James version.  I understand that some parts were
'sided' to fit
King James' needs (something like allowing him to divorce his wife, or
something).
It also contains the word "Hell", a word that translates from three
different words,
all with different meanings.  I haven't found one yet, but the "New
International" version
might be a good bet.  I would also try to get one translated by someone
who would 
have no bias either for or against any specific religion (someone who
would translate
only by content and not by current idiologies, thiest or athiest).

Let us know if you find a good one!

Brian /-|-\
========================================================================
==========
Disclaimer:  BNR is not responsible for my opinions:  they only own my body.
              
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Reply-To: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:13:20 GMT


I BELIEVE!

Appoint me as the first prophet to the Church of Colleen, and I *PROMISE* to 
clarify your Word in ways that even you can't figure out!


"And Lo, Colleen spoketh;
 I AM GOD, and
 I AM the SUPREME BEING,
 and I AM the DIVINE CREATOR,
 and the usenet was still"

"And Colleen spake unto the netmasses
 I can walketh on the water 
 but to do so would proveth the folly of those that don't believe,
 and soeth I don't"

(From the Book of Colleen; Bittrolfficus 1:3)

 
Steve Bittrolff

The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:30:21 GMT

rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

>In article <RLK.92Aug12170426@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

>      I think it's safe to suggest that Mr. LeRoy would say that Judaism
>      prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts as well.  None of the
>      following matters to him, as for him one defines a religion without
>      regard to the actions or beliefs of its adherents.

>   That's an interesting thing for you to say, given that you have
>   consistently said that Christianity is defined by the Bible (presumably
>   the New Testament, to be specific), not by what those who claim to be
>   its adherents say.  Or does my wording "those who claim to be its
>   adherents" vs. your "its adherents" make the difference?

>I have been informed by jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com that he (jbrown) is the
>one who made that statement originally.  In that case, please accept my
>apology (if you did not also make that statement).

Accepted.  (I say this publicly just to keep things clear.)

(I jumped into Mr. Brown's discussion, so the confusion is completely
understandable.  Hats off to Mr. Krawitz for being clear and honest.
He wins my "Affable Poster of the Week" award.)
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,sci.physics,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
From: briansp@css.itd.umich.edu (Brian Spolarich)
Subject: Re: Subject?
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:46 GMT

In article <2A945C8C.15126@orion.oac.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.022459.11564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
>>In article <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:
>>>Jesus Saves
>>
>>Gretzky Steals, He shoots, He SCORES!
>
>Jesus save, Moses invests.
>
>Jesus saves sinners -- and redeems them for VALUABLE CASH PRIZES!!!
>
>Any more out there?
>
>Blessings,
>Janis

   Je$u$ $aves...at Standard Federal.
   That's my bank.
   -b.

________________________________________________________________________
Brian W. Spolarich			"I never understand what it is
1029 Vaughn St.				about all of these vegetarians
Ann Arbor, MI 48104			trying to make vegetables taste 
(313) 747-8473				like meat.  I mean, do priests
Internet: brian.spolarich@umich.edu	buy a lot of blow-up dolls?"
Bitnet:  USERW292@UMICHUM			-Kyle Baker
Xref: sparky alt.mythology:1648 sci.anthropology:722
From: std_beaulieu@hg.uleth.ca
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: marduk
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:43:34 GMT
Reply-To: std_beaulieu@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge

just following the discussion on Marduk and planetary orbits et all,
and I too appear to have a problem. The epic: the Enuma Elish outlines
the creation myth of Sumeria and in great detail describes the
overthrow of Tiamat by the warrior god Marduk. This epic, in detailing
how Tiamat's body was apportioned after she was vanquished tell us
that her forehead etc became the firmanent et al. In short earth
as we know it was cretade from her body as were those things that we
now observe in the heaven.s
Marduk is not a planet, he is a usurper. He replaces not only Tiamat
(the female principle), but also the "father god" much as Zeus does
Cronus in the Theogany.
It is also interesting to note that we have a copy of the Enuma Elish
that appears to predate 1750 BCE slightly. The reign of Hammurabi was
underway in Babylon. Hammurabi clearly identifies himself with Marduk
and consigns the gods of the other Sumerian/Babylonian cities states
to an inferior status. The epic specifically appoints Babylon as the
holy city, and the epic itself was reenacted for 10 days every year in 
a huge pageant known as the Akitu festival. In this ritual both Marduk/
Hammurabi are reconfirmed as divine kings, all other dieties were "barged"
into Babylon to pay homage, in essence, the epic was renacted i almost all
its detail.
It has been speculated, and I would be inclined to concur, that Hammurabi
made excellent poltical use of an epic that could be used as a basis for
divine status for the Kings of Babylon....but as his line was new, so too
did he need a new god. An interesting problem....he may have had to redefine
the myth only slightly...by adding Marduk, the warrior god.
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: Re: The creation of Eve
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:06:45 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <92225.125915TIP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
TIP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
 
>
>This goes back to the question of what evidence there is supporting the idea
>that the original creation myth was aimed at suppressing the matriarchal
>religions and societies of the time (which seem to have been much more
 
not so, in the earliest myths, males have always been dominate.  Females
(even tiamat) caused the troubles.  Does that the other gods putting
her in place, mean she was in charge?  Hardly.
 
>widespread than modern anthropologists will often have you believe).  Not only
>was the woman to be blamed for the fall from grace, but so was the snake,
>the standard symbol of the female priestesses power.  Clearly, the myth
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was the ancient symbol for wisdom, which anyone could have held.  This
is not a strictly female possession.
 
>points out, only the patriarchal god can offer Paradise, and men should
>stay well away from female wiles.  Moreover, elsewhere in Genesis, there
>are a number of warnings to stay away from a certain contemporary god, whose
>name I unfortunately forget, who was referred to as male but has recently
>been shown to be the most powerful female goddess of the time.
 
show me!   You must be reading Merlin Stone's book 'When God was a Woman'.
She has her story all mixed up, and should try rewriting it.
 
>I have another question, though, concerning the Garden of Eden myth.  It seems
>to me that fundamentally what Eve chose was knowledge--in any of its forms,
>knowledge as wisdom, knowledge of her own individuality, knowledge of her
>sexuality, knowledge of her mortality--over immortality.  But an immortality
>in which she would always be dumb to the world around her.  While this is
>a difficult choice, knowledge seems to be the obvious one to me.  I'd be
>interested to know what other people thought about this.  Or if anyone had
>insights on why she got pegged as making the biggest mistake of all time.
 
Let's talk e-mail--that would be simpler.
 
>-karen
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Dog Mythos
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 01:33:12 EST
Organization: Ailanthus Project

kyee@caesar.mit.edu (Kenneth Yee) writes:

> As an aside to this discussion, I came across an essay by Geza Roheim that
> looks at Cu-Culainn (sp!) from a Freudian perspective.  I think Roheim's
> argument is based on Freud's primal horde theory (see Freud's _Totem and
> Taboo_), which, as I understand it, isn't widely accepted among
                                      ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> anthropologists.  Also, Roheim's writing's aren't very readable. :)
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Anyways, this essay can be found in a book edited by Lowell Edmunds and
> Alan Dundes: _Oedipus:  A Folklore Casebook_.  New York: Garland 1983.
> This book, by the way looks at the Oedipus tale-type as opposed to the
> Sophocles play.

that's putting it mildly.  we studied freud's anthropological theories in one
of my anthropology classes.  the professor put in in for comic relief, to
break up the seriousness of things a bit.  we tore the thing to shreads.  he
may have had a few good ideas about the effects of patriarchal religion on
people, but the reast of freud's stuff is pretty shaky.

incest aversion comes from the second generation of men killing and eating
their father so they could have sex with their mother and sisters...  yeah,
right.
                                           -ailsa



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com                   ________
        I don't need a hero                Silence \      / Action
        I don't need a soldier                =     \    /    =
        I did when i was younger            Death    \  /    Life
        But now i'm so much older.                    \/
From: s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (and a thousand battles shall be won..)
Subject: Re: The creation of Eve
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:17:55 GMT

For a most interesting book which includes the subject of
knowledge in the adam/eve story and how this translates as the
overthrow of women having knowldge (and 'power' in society) -
there is 'The Chalice and the Blade - our history , our future'
by Riane Eisler.

V.



Newsgroups: alt.mythology
From: std_beaulieu@hg.uleth.ca
Subject: babylonian myths
Reply-To: std_beaulieu@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:09:19 GMT

my favorite epic of gilgamesh is the Penguin classic, 
       translation N.K. Sandars (1960,64 and 72)
       The only good copy i have of the Enuma Elish came from the 
       A.N.E.T. :The Ancient Near Eastern Texts...editor. E.B. 
       Pritcheard 1952...I'll try and get the press to you.
       Good luck....
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
From: lilorenzin@apollo.davidson.edu (...FLAME)
Subject: Re: The creation of Eve
Organization: Davidson College, Davidson, NC
Reply-To: lilorenzin@apollo.davidson.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:02:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: apollo.davidson.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

karen -

> Moreover, elsewhere in Genesis, there
>are a number of warnings to stay away from a certain contemporary god, whose
>name I unfortunately forget, who was referred to as male but has recently
>been shown to be the most powerful female goddess of the time.

ashtoreth = astarte.  look for references to shrines on hills or in caves, that
they're to destroy...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
...flame 			...many waters cannot quench love...
lilorenzin@davidson		   lilorenzin@apollo.davidson.edu
From: TIP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: Re: The creation of Eve
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:59:15 GMT
 <1992Aug9.124232.12247@discus.technion.ac.il>
 <168407E67.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> <1992Aug11.185721.774@kbsw1>
 <1992Aug12.114301.1@indyvax.iupui.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

This goes back to the question of what evidence there is supporting the idea

that the original creation myth was aimed at suppressing the matriarchal
religions and societies of the time (which seem to have been much more
widespread than modern anthropologists will often have you believe).  Not only
was the woman to be blamed for the fall from grace, but so was the snake,
the standard symbol of the female priestesses power.  Clearly, the myth
points out, only the patriarchal god can offer Paradise, and men should
stay well away from female wiles.  Moreover, elsewhere in Genesis, there
are a number of warnings to stay away from a certain contemporary god, whose
name I unfortunately forget, who was referred to as male but has recently
been shown to be the most powerful female goddess of the time.

I have another question, though, concerning the Garden of Eden myth.  It seems
to me that fundamentally what Eve chose was knowledge--in any of its forms,
knowledge as wisdom, knowledge of her own individuality, knowledge of her
sexuality, knowledge of her mortality--over immortality.  But an immortality
in which she would always be dumb to the world around her.  While this is
a difficult choice, knowledge seems to be the obvious one to me.  I'd be
interested to know what other people thought about this.  Or if anyone had
insights on why she got pegged as making the biggest mistake of all time.

-karen
From: yholbroo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Yash Holbrook)
Subject: Re: Babylonian myths
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.000803.621@u.washington.edu> monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
>Seeking references for 'good' english versions of Enuma Elish (sp?) and
>Gilgamesh myths.

Scholorly editions or what?   I've got a Penguin Classics prose edition
that is really good, but only for story content purposes.  

-Yash
Newsgroups: alt.mythology