HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,
Subject: re: How evil are the Republicans?
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 22 Aug 1992 00:24:44 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <sbuckley.714450723@sfu.ca>,
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  sorry to burst your bubble, but the republicans are the fascists
>and you won't find the bible advocating totalitarian fascist politics.

Perhaps the situation vis a vis Fundagelical Christians is different
in Canada, but you are dead off the mark here.

The entire thrust of Fundagelical Christianity since the 1970s has
been to push for a repressive, anti-democratic social agenda.  As
for the Bible, it is like a magic cow with a thousand tits - a flavor
for every taste.  The OT has enough bestial behavior tricked out
as "God's will" and "God's law" to fuel any fascist agenda.  What
Master Race smacks of more arrogance than the Born Again Christian?

The Oregon Citizens Alliance, the Colorado Family Values group, the
Focus on the Family group, Rev. Wildmon's trusty hatemongers, and
not least of all the Fundagelical Pope, Pat Robertson, all speak
as "religious" groups and each and everyone is ultra, ultra Right
Wing.

The Fundagelicals have whored their brand of Christianity to
totalitarianism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jack Carroll      "We would all be Christians were it not for the
<SECBH@CUNYVM>        the Christians."
                                                         Gandhi
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - Vatican II on the Bible -- Dei Verbum
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:07:41 GMT

scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:

>In article <l90s30INNbgj@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:
>>
>>Earlier in the summer I promised to post this document regarding
>>the Catholic Church's position on Divine Revelation...

>Damn, Dennis.  Do you post _anything_ original?

C'mon, Scott, he follows organised religion. Of course he doesn't have
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:21:17 GMT

Eric Rescorla writes:

>i wrote:

>>  i'm asserting that the empirical data set is smaller than the data
>>set i'm acknowledging as relevant.

>Yes, but by refusing to consider as evidence the body of data that is precisely
>analagous to yours and which says that Islam rather than Christianity
>is right, you are indulging in special pleading. I know of no evidence
>available to me, empirical or otherwise, which suggests that
>Christianity is in any way truer than Islam, Buddhism, or any of
>a rather large set of religions. Since you clearly believe Christianity
>to be true--and therefore must believe it's competitors to be false.
>I ask you on what basis you do this.

  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.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:56:33 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bszn8I.LrJ@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|In article <65966@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

[In regard to forcing an system of beliefs on to a person]
|>Forcing may be the work of the Devil.
|
|Why do you hesitate? What leads you to say maybe? What is the work of the
|Christian Devil as you understand it?
|
|>|Or perhaps searching for converts is the work of the Christian Devil?
|>If the sole purpose is pride in the number of converts, maybe so.
|
|Again, why do you hesitate? I'm not saying hesitation is evil, it is good
|to think something over, that is why you have a brain. But what are your
|thoughts that allow you to say maybe, if you can express them in words? Who
|knows, you may be on to something here.

It doesn't have to be the direct work of the Devil, but it can be - that's
why I used 'may be'.

|[On conversion as the work of the Christian Devil:]
|>I asked for background previously and so have again - that would be 
|>sufficient, for now.
|
|What kind of background are you looking for? In the original post I stated
|why I believe this to be so, what more are you looking for? Can you express
|why it is your belief that conversion is the work of the creator? 

I thought the original post implied if not directly stated the idea of
'if we assume conversion = evil ...'.

Jesus said unless you repent (change) you will not see or enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.  Repentance or changing one's ways, direction, or
thought is common throughout the Bible, as one turns from false gods
to the One True God.

|>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                        -|-  |  -|-
|>                         |   |   |
|
|>|Would that be some type of icon you have there?
|
|>Not for me, if the real questions is this an idol.  It is a symbol, but
|>I don't worship it.
|
|And what did Yahweh have to say about using religious symbols? What symbols
|did Yahweh say were appropriate to represent Him?

You rightly question what did Yahweh say about images/symbols representing
Himself.  He didn't want anything (e.g., graven images) representing Himself.
The above symbol does not represent Him.  It represents Chrisitianity
in the sense that the three crosses are often identified as being a
key point in its foundation and of everyone's salvation.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:07:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)
>
>70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan "We Are Yammerheads!" Colvin)

i dunno, but hopefully it won't be the same place your net.reputation
has gone, considering the wide range of groups you've attacked.
i mean, rec.games.frp??  at least _i_ cut it down to the single most
logical group.

>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

sure.  gimme a map.

>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

i would slap my head in my best Stephen Wright imitation and exclaim
"damn!  forgot my resume!"

>[idiotic blathering about "no agenda" deleted]

hey susan, tell chris he oughta get a hobby.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:09:51 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714086477@sfu.ca> 
>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
><     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
><     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
><   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
><      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
>And just what are you and your kind going to do with my Daughter?


  i'm not going to do anything.  anyone else gonna do something?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: So The bible Is NOT the word of God???
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:26:19 GMT


(Paul Harvey) writes:
> ... AntiChristian is the same as Christian.

Amazing! I didn't know the law of contradiction had been suspended.
When did this happen?


DBW
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:40:51 GMT

Polytheism, according to the scholars, was the first religion in the Bible.
Period.
 
I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but do they have capital letters?  Whether,
God is spelled with a "BIG" 'G' or a "little" 'G'; I suggest it makes
little (and probably no) differences.  Throughout the Bible, there
are replete examples of Henotheism.  Moses, according to Manthos, was
one of the first to teach mono-theism--this after he had gone through
the Egyptian Mystery School.  The Jews never tried to prove:
 
    a) the existence of God
    b) the non-existence of OTHER Gods
    c) pre-existence of spirit
    d) after life
 
these were the basic givens.
 
IMHO, its a total waste to quivel about a little 'g' god vs a big 'g'
god.
 
Get my some Hebrew scholar, see what he says.  Perhap, old-whats-his-face
said: "Choose you this day whom ye will serve, but for me and my house we
will serve Yahweh."   This is quite different than saying "serve the Lord"
means there is only one Lord.  Come, eat the roses!
 
 
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: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:25:07 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: Young Jeff writes:
: 
: >Stephen Buckley writes:
: 
: >: Young Jeff writes:
: >: 
: >I have been an atheist since high school over 15 years ago, but I don't
: >feel my suffering is any greater than it was during my theist days.  It
: >is less in fact.  From my experience it appears that bad things happen
: >to Christians just as often as non-Christians.  Do you claim otherwise?
: >If all you are claiming is that Christians suffer less under similar
: >situations, I think this is easily explained by psychological factors.
: >I refuse to believe in God just to gain a psychological crutch.
: 
:   heaven on earth is not promised.  this is a world where suffering exists.
: debating the origin of suffering is another thread, but when i suffer
: i do make it through via the grace of god lifting me out.  what's wrong
: with god as a crutch when there is a whole industry of self-help books,
: therapists and analysts all there to help people cope with suffering.

I am not questioning that religion helps other people cope with suffering.
I am saying that I don't need this type of mental crutch, I get along
better in life since I gave it up, and I don't think the ability of
religion to help other people cope with suffering is compelling evidence
for the existance of god.

: >But the price of accepting it is too high.  After much thinking and
: >reading, it appears to me that Christianity is indistinguishable
: >from the other religious myths of the world.  To make a leap of faith
: >past my doubts would be intellectual suicide.  Will God condemn me to
: >hell for lacking credulity?  Why is credulity considered a virtue in
: >Christianity but nowhere else?
: 
:   the price for accepting jesus is having a relationship with god and receiving
: his spirit and guidance in leading a good life.  credulity is a virtue
: in nothing.  

(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
Credulity: undue readiness of belief.
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Faith is a virtue in Christianity.  Faith requires credulity.  How can
you deny it?  Will God condemn me to hell for lacking credulity?  

: i spent 10 years exploring all sorts of alleged routes to god
: before i spent a whole year examining what jesus offered me in terms
: of salvation, personal healing and answering my metaphysical questions.
: there has been no suicide in my intellect beyond dropping the intellectual
: position that there can be no right answers--that philosophy was one of
: the most empty ones i ever held before.

What if I don't like the "right answers"?  For some Christians the
"right answers" include patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, creationism,
etc., etc.  I would rather flounder in a sea of uncertainty than live
in a castle built on a foundation of air.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:01:58 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <6626@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>
alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>
>If one believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, one has no choice
>but to believe that when Gen. 7:19 says "*all* the high mountains were
>covered" it means exactly that.  Any other interpretation is putting words
>in the mouth of the Bible writer and is only an attempt to reconcile the
>Bible's statement with the fact that there is absolutely no geological
>evidence for a global deluge.
>
>[...]
>
>The point is that it is precisely the lack of evidence of such geological 
>disaster worldwide that forces thinking fundamentalists into the dubious
>position of claiming the Bible does not mean what it says.
>

I believe that some of the original writings were inspired while
others may have been observations of events as they were perceived.
If I understand your comments, no errors have been made in copying or
translating text from those original authors since the time of the
Flood, or since the time the events of the Flood were recorded.  I
also am not suggesting that the Flood was a minor local event, but a
major event sufficient to destroy human life and much of the animal
kingdom.  To Noah's family, this may have appeared to be all life on
Earth and as far as they knew, the water rose above all the mountains,
or some scribe decided the story wasn't good enough and beefed it up a
bit.
--
Mark
-- 
Good-day!

Mark
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14439 talk.religion.newage:3926 sci.physics:13266
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: 21 Aug 92 21:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Aug21.094831.7995@u.washington.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes...
> 
>Maintaining certain facts about reality has consequences for our values.
>Maintaining certain values has consequences for what facts we will find.
>I just don't think the world can be chopped up neatly into facts and values.
>-Tom McFarlane

Whether you maintain them or not, they are still the facts.  If you happen
to know them then perhaps you will behave differently.  But I doubt it.  
Can you provide an example of a specific fact or law of physics that influences
the moral value of any specific societal rule or law of behavior in any
definite way?

-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,alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:53:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <920818174611_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM> 70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) writes:

Hint: what sort of person thinks there's any relationship between the
following newsgroups?

alt.evil,alt.pagan,soc.motss,rec.games.frp,alt.atheism,alt.religion.emacs,
talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics

Now, given that: does "Just curious" seem likely as the "agenda"?  I
didn't think so.  This question, and of course my response, are a
complete waste of the time and resources of everybody concerned.

>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)

Obviously a trick question.  Most people who die are buried, if they
are not cremated, but that's not valid.  I guess the real answer is
"nowhere": I, in the sense of the consciousness inhabiting this body,
will cease to exist (as far as I have any reason to believe).

>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

Where?  Define "heaven".  In any event, the apparent answer, given
current evidence, is "no"; I won't "go" anywhere, I will not, in any
meaningful sense, exist.

>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

Nothing: I'd be dead.  Dead people don't answer questions, or even
understand them, let alone questions concerning imaginary locations
asked by imaginary beings.  

>What is my "agenda" for asking these questions?  Just curious.

What is my "agenda" for answering?  Great boredom compounded by a
chest cold and attendant medication.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Philosophical objection to homosexuality
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:03:24 GMT

In article <12893@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.002556.26840@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Don't you think it's time you backed up your assertion or retracted it?
>
>No, I think it is time that you take a trip to the local library.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the convention on Usenet that when
one makes an empirical assertion, one backs it up.

Let us review:
In your original post, you claimed that "psychologists" had decided
that homophobia was a mental illness. I challenged that and asked
for a reference. You provided none. Rather, you proceeded to spout
quite a bit of tripe about "fear" and latent homosexuality in
homophobes. Tripe which was not substantiated by even one shred
of empirical evidence.

Paul, you made an assertion of fact. It is incumbent upon you to
back it up. It is not my job to do research to support your
claim.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:53:18 GMT

  I have forwarded a copy of this to talk.origins and added it to the newsgroup
line.  However, there is one point I would just like to make directly.

In article <sbuckley.714449558@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
writes:
>   now i haven't gone through all the sources for the 127 points that
> lead to the above conclusions, and i've decided to not bother.  enough
> of them are sound and enough are actually quoted that i'm not going to 
> go to the effort to check them all, especially when many are from 
> darwin himself, and many of the most reputable scientific journals that
> have ever existed.

  Quotes from Darwin on evolution are pointless and silly.  We do not quote
Newton to disprove quantum physics, even if he was one of the major founders of
physics.  Why?  Because phics has grown tremendously since his time, because
things which were just hypothisized back then have been shown to be fact,
because Newton did not provide every physical law.

  Likewise, what does quoting Darwin prove?  Did Darwin know about all the
research and testing that went on since he proposed the theory?  did he know
about the modification made from observation since his time?  Good grief, Darwin
didn't even know about the existance of DNA, and germs were still a theory in
most parts fo the world.

  Quoting Darwin is not only a pointless endeavor, but beelies the desperateness
of the author for quotes.  I am not impressed.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc