HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Islamic stories...
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <l9ku2fINNe8d@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...

[...]
>I've pointed out in a couple of other articles that the Bible has enough
>errors that it's incorrect to call it 'true.'  The Qur'an is free of these
>errors because it is from God Himself - it is not even an 'inspired' word
>of a man; rather it is direct Divine revelation.

	Pulling out my local Qur'an:

	God never commands us to do a shameful thing (7:28; 6:131)
	God commands people to sin in order to rightly destroy them 
	(17:16)

	8 days in Creation (41:9-12)
	6 days in cretaion (10:3, 11:7, 7:54)

	Commands people to wait one year in order to remarry after the 
	death of a spouse (2:240)
	Wait for only 4 months and 10 days (2:234)

	God said Muhammad not to marry any other woman (33:52)
	God told Muhammad to marry any one he wanted or liked (33:50)

[...]

>	much love in Christianity.  Christians often mistakenly
>	think that only their religion has love...  Wrong.  Islam
>	is from the same One God who sent Jesus as His mortal
>	messenger to remind the Jews of the spirit as opposed to
>	the law.  Later generations distorted Jesus' message
>	terribly.  Hence another prophet was sent with another
>	message: the Qur'an.  
>	You'll find the love still present, but


[...]
	Commands them to kill non-Muslims after the months of Rageab, 
	Zu El Kea'ada, Zu El Heaga, Ramadan (9:5; 9:73; 66:9; 2:193; 
	2:256)



=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: religion and rationalism
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:41:39 GMT
Organization: Moderation, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Stephen Buckley) wrote:

 >   this is where each individual human being approaches the spiritual 
 > market place, asks their questions and sees which philosophy answers 
 > their questions.  the coherence of the answers offered in jesus and in
 > the bible answered all my questions about life while the others i
 > studied did not.  everyone has their own questions and i believe jesus
 > can answer anyone's questions.  but people are free to believe a wide
 > range of things about life that make jesus answer worth little or nothing.
 
(Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) replied:

 This summarizes quite well my Heidegger influenced view that 
 every individual models his world view, and there are *no* right
 or wrong world views, just different. However we have tools to 
 sort out empirically what makes sense or not concerning global
 awareness of our environment, such as science. I could boldly
 state that there are *no* such tools concerning religious views.

First of all, I am unsure as to what you are trying to get
across in your second sentence, but I will guess and toss
in my two cents anyway.

Just as in formulating scientific theory, there are certain
axioms inherent in any religious theory.  If the results
of the inquiry are proved to be useful to somebody, then it
is worth it to that somebody to temporarily (at least) 
accept the axioms, for the fruits of what they may provide.

Tools such as reason, pragmatism, and the idea of observing
certain phenomena and speculating on what might be their
significance is no less an important part of theology as it
is in science. The difference is in what the observer is
looking at. One example might be that the scientist is
looking for "objectively repeatable phenomena that doesn't
depend on an observer for it to happen", while the theologian
might be more concerned with "why am I here?" sort of
questions.

Granted that most of what we would probably call science
is based on empirically-based results, there is still the
philosophy of science, as there is philosophy "in general"
and philosophy of religion. Any philosophy will have its
tools, hopefully, observation, reason, and the elusive
"common sense" being among them.

To shoot your dying horse whose name is there-are-no-tools-
concerning-religious-views, I would merely refer you to the
"father" of American psychology, William James, who wrote
an (IMO) interesting essay called "The Will to Believe".

Dano







 
>If you show me people that have changed their life due to Jesus,
>I could show you people that have changed their lives due to:
>* Buddha
>* Mohammed
>* money
>* sex
>* remote controls
>* USENET
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>
>---
>"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:52:11 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.


 Jeff Young writes:

   It seems that you are saying that the Fall was inevitable.
   What is the difference between punishing a puppy for eternity
   for messing on the carpet and punishing humanity for eternity
   for succumbing to something equally inevitable?  Is eternal
   torment reasonable punishment for performing the inevitable?

   An incorrect assumption was made.  Performing the inevitable
does NOT lead to eternal torment.  You and I still have the choice
to eat the bread of Life, that is, to follow Jesus--John 6:35,
10:28, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31, Acts 3:15 . . .)  or not.  If your
name is not found in the book of life, Rev. 20:11-15, then,
and only then, are you thrown into the lake of fire where there's
"eternal torment" (Rev. 20:10).  

   As for punishment, 1) we have to do something wrong to be
punished.  We do have responsibility to do right and to make
right choices. and 2) the problems humanity has on earth is for 
the most part due to humanity.  We reap what we sow. And 3), 
when God punishes, he does so out of discipline because God 
"disciplines those he loves."  God wants us to get it right.
But we are stubborn, hard headed and think we know it all. We,
like little kids, like to put our fingers in light sockets,
like to have permiscious sexual affairs despite its Russian 
roulette side-effects, and we like to make up all sorts of
things about God in order to deny the truth, and thus wind
up in hell.  These are our choices.  So, make a good one.

   Also, as an aside, God would not punish a puppy for pissing
on the carpet (1 Brian 7:7).


--Brian
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15524 alt.atheism:16447
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:36:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <Aug.30.03.48.00.1992.12942@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> 
>>Jean Piaget, a foremost psychologist and learning theorist,
>>described learning as "disequilibrium," a state of mind created
>>by the influx of new information that conflicts with our existing
>>"schemata" or mental pictures.  Our reaction to the new data
>>determines whether we learn or not.
> 
> and proceeds to assert that people who believe in religion are
> dominated by this, which atheists are not. 

No, no, you missed it entirely.  It is how we all react to new
data that determines whether we learn or not.  I said that
atheists, as freethinkers, react differently than those who have
rigid schemata--that is, we learn, religionists don't.


 This effect (which is
> related to "cognitive dissonance") is well known, and affects
> everyone.  You can see it operating in all areas: religion, politics,
> even science.  It is folly to claim that you are exempt.

I didn't say I was exempt from disequilibrium.  Quite the
contrary.

  Fortunately
> for all of us, people do manage to change their opinions due to
> evidence.  Sometimes they have to be hit over the head a few times by
> the evidence, and of course people do vary.


Religionists get hit over the head daily, but their schemata
seldom changes.  In this respect, they cannot learn.


  But I'm sure we can find
> this sort of thing happening among atheists as well as those who
> believe in religions.  Those who are convinced it doesn't happen
> to them are likely to be most at risk.


Convinced _what_ doesn't happen?  You've got the whole thing
backwards.

Don't be an idiot.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Ref: Why I am not a Muslim [was re: Why I am an atheist/Christian...]
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:32:42 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:

>In article <adams.714861728@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.714849832@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
> 
>>This is good to hear.  Do you mind if I ask what 'branch' of Islam you
>>follow?  It would appear that the Shi'ite branch is fanatical and
>>fundamentalist, comparable to Christians of the same mold.  This is the
>>branch that has spawned Khomeni, et al.

>I am a Sunni Muslim, like 80-90% of the Muslim world.  
This does not surprise me at all, and is what I expected.

>The Shi'ites are
>not fanatical or fundamentalist to the best of my knowledge.  As to
>what Khomeini was...perhaps a Shi'ite can elaborate; I must confess
>my ignorance.
Perhaps I am a victim of media/government distortions, but it would appear
that Shi'ite Muslims are at least acting in the ways I describe.  Perhaps
it is (and I suspect) much like Christianity, in that there are sub-groups
within larger groups, and it is one of these small subgroups that is the
problem.

>>>Execution of political dissidents amounts to taking a life when no life
>>>has been taken.  The Qur'an does not uphold this as justice.
>>Also good to hear.  I take it then the Islamic Republic of Iran is an
>>outlaw state?  In the eyes of Muslims, as well as most of the West.

>You may be jumping to some early conclusions here...  Perhaps the best
>answer is one that will surprise you: there is not a single Muslim
>government on this earth today.  God and the last Prophet gave us
>some very clear guidelines to follow in setting up a government, and
>these guidelines have not been followed at least since 1924 when the 
>caliphate of the Ottoman Empire was annulled.
>Thus, Iran is unfairly singled out in your post.  
Well, since they themselves claim to be an Islamic Republic, I can only
judge by what I see.  At least until I read the Qur'an.  Then, I'll decide.

>My parents are
>Egyptian, and I was born here.  The government of Egypt is an active
>enemy of Islam, and so are all the Arab countries to its left and
>right.  
Hmm.  This is an interesting comment...I was unawre that this was the case.

>It may interest you to know that only 20% of all Muslims are
>Arab.  The overwhelming majority are in Asia.
I was aware of this.  I am also aware that Islam is the fastest growin
religion in America.

 -Steve

--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Church/State separation
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:36:11 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling) writes:

>In article <1992Aug30.085203.14749@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>       Christianity is not the only religion out there.
>	It is certainly not the best.
>	It is, as a matter of fact,
                              ^^^^  You mean opinion.
>       not even right.
                 ^^^^^ For you? or do you mean "right" as in "correct"?

>	So why should it have a say in the affairs of other religions?
>	well, that's that.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:52:40 GMT

In article <n4bnw5p.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.190100.2981@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>If Christianity made any sense, there
>>wouldn't be a whole lot of different versions of it.
>
>I disagree.  I think the sole reason that there are so many versions
>of it is that it makes so _much_ sense to so many people.  All the
>many versions of Christianity are alike in their core beliefs, but
>they've branched off from one another over the ages because of various
>events through history (the Anglican church broke off from the
>Catholic church due to England wanting to assert its independence, for
>example).

Alike in their core beliefs?  You mean like:
(1)  What is sufficient to achieve salvation?
(2)  The meaning of the sacraments?
(3)  The role, powers, and composition of the priesthood?
(4)  The divinity of Jesus?  (not much in debate now among christians,
but a hot topic for several centuries).
There is no agreement on these topics among christians in my
hometown.

>
>>I think that it _doesn't_
>>make sense, and people believe it anyway because they either don't think about
>>the problems or they rationalize them away.
>
>That's a very good point.  It's entirely possible that Christians are
>only rationalizing away everything that conflicts with their religion.
>But they do a perfectly good job of rationalizing things _within the
>context of their religion_, and besides, who's to say that we atheists
>aren't just rationalizing away the existence of a god?  Who's to say
>that whenever we reflect that the universe might be a nicer place if
>only there were such things as absolute good and spiritual guidance,
>this isn't the sign of a deity trying to nudge us towards him?
>
>Nobody can say absolutely for sure either way.  Keep an open mind.

Sure.  The day I find christians who keep an open mind about
atheism.
>
>(A note, by the way; let me expand on my argument a bit.  The
>Christianity I'm trying to defend isn't the literal Christianity that
>says that everything in the Old Testament happened exactly precisely
>as it's written.  Instead, I'm talking about a more flexible view of
>Christianity, one that's willing to listen to (and try to accept)
>facts that science reveals to it, and see how these facts fit in with
>its beliefs.)

There are literally millions of christians in the USA who regard
your 'flexible' christianity as the greatest danger this country
faces.  I think this approach is a vast improvement, though.

Keep up the thoughtful work.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 26 Aug 1992 10:24:38 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug26.021658.29016@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>[an english version of the koran and some helpful hints deleted]
>
>If I read the koran without any commentary helps, I would conclude
>the many "we" statements[meaning god]were strong evidence for the
>trinity, just as the plural use in genesis:-)

And this is why perhaps commentary is not such a bad idea...  But even
without commentary by a human being, one of the first laws for understanding
the Qur'an is that it is its own best commentary (i.e. God has 
explained everything in it).  Thus to address your point directly, the
following verses were described by the Prophet Muhammad as being 
equivalent in meaning to one-third of the Qur'an.  Those of you who
wish to understand the essence of the Qur'an, here it is:

	[112:1-4]
	Say: He is Allah, the One.
	Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute:
	He does not beget nor is He begotten,
	and there is none comparable to Him.

The "We" and "Us" references in the Qur'an are meant to emphasize the
Greatness of the Creator (of everything) when He speaks of Himself in
the first person.  Please note something subtle but very important:
there is no reference in the Qur'an to God as "They" - third person and
second person references are always in the singular.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:01:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <la54p6INN4bi@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) wrote:
> 
> (Kent Sandvik) writes to Stephen Buckley:
> 
>  I have faith in that
>  most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
>  truth would create a *universal* religion.
>  
> Hmmm. If we say that simple mathematics is universally true
> then were is our universal religion?

Even looking at complex mathematics that nearly all mathematicians
world view agree upon as universal rules, where's the universal
religion?

Cheers,
Kent
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15515 alt.atheism:16440
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:43:18 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <sbuckley.715469738@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>  but if god forgives someone and they don't accept it and they don't
>want a relationship with him, how can god be just and accept those who
>do accept them as well as those who don't want a relationship with god.

The problem with this is that "god" hasn't made its presence known to all of
the people who won't or can't accept its forgiveness.  "God" doesn't offer its
forgiveness directly, but supposedly through human agents.  Lacking convincing
evidence of the existence of "god", some people don't take the offer
seriously.  That's *not* the same as believing "god" exists and rejecting it.

A case in point:  I was raised Methodist, did the Sunday school/church thing
with the family for years.  But I never really believed what I was being
taught.  I simply didn't believe, didn't have the faith, and no amount of
wanting to have it would make it happen.  And I *did* want to believe, then,
because I had absolutely no desire to be different from everyone else I knew,
and to my naive mind the concept of a loving, forgiving, all-knowing, all-
powerful God was attractive.  As I matured, I grew to appreciate my atheism
and accept it.

Yet, according to Christians, I'm a sinner because I didn't and won't accept
Jesus Christ as my personal savior.  I'm sorry, but I can no more do that than
believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  That the supposedly loving,
forgiving Christian god would damn me to hell for that only reinforces my
beliefs that Christianity is not true.

>why should god bring to heaven one who doesn't want his forgiveness
>and his life?

Why should "god" exclude those who were unable to convince themselves of its
existance?  If "god", being omnipotent and omniscient, convinces a person that
it exists as Christians portray it, and the person rejects it, then I see no
reason to grant that person entry to heaven.

>>THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
>>A LOVING GOD. SORRY TO ANYONE OFFENDED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE FACT.
>
>  well, it's an opinion reconcilable enough for christians to live with it.

Because they're unthinking drones who take it on faith that it makes sense to
"god".  :-)

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ChazL@county.lmt.mn.org (Chaz Larson)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Reply-To: ChazL@county.lmt.mn.org (Chaz Larson)
Organization: LaserMaster Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:48:45 GMT

> *Precisely*.  But the whole basis of my argument is that if you just
>accept as a base truth that this god _does_ exist as the Christian
>religion describes him, then the whole rest of the Christian religion
>(with all its rules, teachings, and tenets) is more than just random
>whimsical scribblings, and actually has a cohesive message to it.

I agree, Brian.  This discussion reminds me of a guy in one of my basic 
philosophy classes back at the U.  We were talking about Descartes and his 
concepts of perfect minds and suchlike [which, of course, are all predicated 
on the existence of a perfect God], and this one guy kept trying to turn 
every discussion of every one of Descartes' ideas into an argument about the 
existence of God, since without the existence of God most of Descartes 
collapses.  This guy was totally missing the point.  In order to discuss this-
or-that religious or philosophical construction, there are always some base 
assumptions that have to be granted, else the discussion gets hopelessly 
mired.

Most of the actively believing Christians I have known have not been morons.  
They have a very real faith that this God exists.  In order to discuss the 
rest of the philosophical system and its validity [not, as Brian points out, 
its "truth"], you have to grant that for sake of discussion, God exists.

Imagine that you're teaching Newtonian physics, and every time you try to 
discuss the orbital behavior of Earth, someone demands that in order for the 
discussion to be meaningful at all, you must first address the question of 
whether or not gravitons exist, and if so, what form they take.  Ridiculous.

chaz


..must think...bubble pipe will relax me and I think...
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14921 talk.religion.newage:4080 sci.physics:13607
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:08:02 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug26.192110.27466@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes...
> 
>I thought there was a _lot_ of evidence that early humans hunted many
>other animals to extinction.  Bones in fire pits and the like.

I doubt that it is easy to prove such a contention.  But even granted that it 
is so, what are we talking about?  Two or three large mammals which were
hunted to extinction?  A dozen?  A hundred?  This is nothing compared to
the job we are doing right now.  That many species may be disappearing
every day in the tropics.  Most of these are arthropods that most people
are too busy to care about.  But from a scientific point of view, at least,
this is a tragedy of the highest order.

-Scott  
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc