HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : )
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 08:59:45 GMT

In article <C0pzx9.7BB@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <12301@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>writes:
>
>>                   The difference is that an assertion made by an
>>atheist is more likely to match what the alt.atheism readers think
>>anyway, so there'll be no reason for them to exercise their right to
>>demand that it be backed up.
>
>Umm, I hope you realize that is more or less the point of what I said?

You're being coy Mr. Siemon, and it doesn't become you.

I take it then, that whenever you engage in conversation, you make
sure that all the assumptions that you and the others involved hold
in common are first backed up from first principles?  That, say, whenever
you discuss cosmology, you first go over Einstein's derivations, but
not until you've derived all the fancy mathematics required?  That
you never tacitly assume that earth is round?  Alt.atheism is supposed
to be a forum for atheists to discuss atheism amongst themselves.
As such, there are some assumptions that they hold in common -- after
all, that's why they're atheists.  There really shouldn't be any
need to constantly reexamine these assumptions with every article,
although unfortunately, that's pretty much what happens in practice.
IMO, far too much of what goes on there consists of inane debate about
whether or not your bloody gods exist.  Inevitably, if the discussion
ever starts to move beyond that point, it gets dragged down into the
muck again my some imbecile telling us to repent and accept Jesus
as our Lord and Saviour.

>There is no reason for them to exercise reason, so they don't?  Pshaw.

I don't think you're stupid Mr Siemon, so I can see no reason to think
that you wouldn't have understood Ivan's point.  Ivan said nothing about
not exercising reason.  But you can't exercise reason unless you've got
something to exercise it on.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:18:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.150848.6190@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <994Y02Jd30Fv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>The problem with you (as well as many Mormons) is that you can't
>>>stand to live with uncertainty.  You have to have it black and white.
>>>True or false, good or evil, saved or damned, etc., etc.
>>>Unfortunately, if you have it that way, you are fooling yourself.
>>
>>Was John the Baptist fooling himself when we wrote, "These things I have
>>written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."...?
>
>  Are you sure that it was John the Baptist that said that? 
>
>  Jesus said (John 10:27-28) "My Sheep hear my voice and I know them,
>  and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life..."
>
>
> Let's assume that it was John the Baptist that made the quote as you 
> have above (I really couldn't find the reference).  John the B.
> talks about the written word, and Jesus talks about "hearing" the voice
> and then recieving (active tense) eternal life.
>
> Aside from the problem, that _none_ of the writing of John the Baptist
> are contained in the NT, I think the words of Christ are much more
> reliable because of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

   If I may be of assistance, the quotation from which that is derived
is 1 John 5:13: "These things have I written unto you that believe on
the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal
life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

   That John is definitely not John the Baptist, but may be John the
Apostle and/or Evangelist.

   My view (Catholic) of "security of salvation" is that one can have
a good idea of whether one is going to go to Heaven.  This depends on
one's state of Grace.  One receives this Grace through Christ.  One
can also lose one's salvation through mortal sin, which is a rejection
of Christ (see the rest of 1 John 5 for a distinction between sins
that will and will not result in a "loss of salvation."  These can be
called "mortal" or "venial" sins).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Freewill was The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan7.135300.9967@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:46:44 UTC

In article <1993Jan7.135300.9967@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>If you guys are so free, then explain this: how do you decide to make
>a decision? Or do decisions _just happen_? Heh heh... *evil laugh*

Let me share with you a little technique I learned in one of the many 12
step programs I belong to, or did I discover this while contemplating
the meaning of a rock, well whatever, here it is: I have digitized time
into convenient discreet (prudent at this juncture) increments. So, at
let us say, time zed, I evaluate fully all inputs from all senses
including my third eye and third leg as well as a complete historical
analysis of any relevant cycles and I determine my course of action
which I then execute. I then increment time by my relatively discreet
amount, let us say delta, such that time is now zed plus delta and I
continue this routine ad infinitum until I die. I know it's a bore and
no doubt somewhat nurdy, but it does assure me of my allocation of
freewill, don't you think? And it does provide a convenient and
discreet work-around to the udder horrors of the analog world. So, there
you have it, I am not a number, I am a free man! But, then there is that
minor problem that I do have things to lose, thus failing the Janis
Joplin test, you know, and I say woah woah wo, and honey I say why,
whyahhhh, why do they call it love when it's such a ball and chain?
Well, there you have it, I know this wasn't one of my best posts, but
doggone-it, I'm good enough, I'm attractive and besides, people like me.
Be seeing you.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:31:43 GMT

In article <ksand-040193172623@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >So this is the logical statement, those who believe (A) need to do (B)
   >in order to authenticate themselves to belong to the set of As.

  I see that you're still going on about "logical statements" and the like,
apparently grimly determined to learn nothing about logic. Were it not for
your past record as an indefatigable babbler, I would think by now that
you're putting us on.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Basics of Islam
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:04:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.095014.8804@netcom.com> zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.163020.6973@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>
>>3)  What distortions of Islam do we Americans see, for example through the
>>media portrayal of Islamic fundamentalism in Middle Eastern nations?
>
>The biggest distortion is that Islam is portraied as a religion of savages and
>killers and of men in large beards and women clad in black. A real 
>understanding of Islam, even by so-called muslims, is acheived be reading the
>Quran and judging for yourself.

Depending on what you pay attention to, one big resurgence
of distortion comes with the claim that Islam is *exclusively*
a religion for people of African descent; and also if you
are of African descent, this is the religion for you.  I encountered
such street preachers
in New York City this last spring of 1992.  A lot of people seem 
to have been "buying" into it, for one reason or another.  I don't 
recall Allah, Mohammad, et al being mentioned at all in the broadcasts.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:26001 alt.atheism:25818
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:34:44 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In <1993Jan6.212949.26608@nscf.org> warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:

>>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 29-Dec-92 Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE
>>B.. by 621-9615@lpl.arizona.edu 
>>>    I'll state my point first then back it up.  The point is this.  
>>> Ultimately, we as humans have chosen death over life.  We had preferred
>>> cancer and old age a long time ago.   The four year old girl gets what
>>> she has inherited from the beginnings of humanity.  Death.  Suffering. 
>>> It is sad.  Truly a pity.  But guess what?  God didn't create it that way. 
>>> He originally created us to live forever.  God doesn't dole out cancer
>>> to 4-year olds.  Such is a sad and major consequence of what we as
>>> humans chose for ourselves a long long time ago.  

>True, you say God did not create that world that way.
>We chose it.
>But God is omniscient.
>He knew we would choose it.
>Yet he created it anyway.

>God knew that the world would be a disgusting place to live
>with all its death. Yet he did it anyway.

>Even more important, about the soul...

>God created all this to let us choose him or choose Hell.
>But he knew that most of us would choose Hell.
>He knew, that by starting this mad experiment, that he was
>effectively condemning most of humanity to eternity of torment.
>This is certainly not a good thing. More like evil.
>Yet God is supposed to be all good.

>The very foundation of Xtianity is total crap. As shown above.
>Of course, most Xtians are somehow blind to this.

>Warren.

It would be crap if there was not a way out, but there is.  God respects us and
and loves us enough to provide a way for all to escape what we brought on 
ourselves, and He gives us the choice to accept it or reject it.  It's sad that
you feel that most Xtians(?) are somehow blind to this.  Maybe it's because 
they know that there is more to the story than what you give.  Who do we see 
Jesus of Nazareth as?  We know He existed, but was He God in the flesh, or just
another Jewish carpenter?




loves 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:23:40 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.212949.26608@nscf.org>, warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:
|> >Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 29-Dec-92 Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE
|> >B.. by 621-9615@lpl.arizona.edu 
|> >>    I'll state my point first then back it up.  The point is this.  
|> >> Ultimately, we as humans have chosen death over life.  We had preferred
|> >> cancer and old age a long time ago.   The four year old girl gets what
|> >> she has inherited from the beginnings of humanity.  Death.  Suffering. 
|> >> It is sad.  Truly a pity.  But guess what?  God didn't create it that way. 
|> >> He originally created us to live forever.  God doesn't dole out cancer
|> >> to 4-year olds.  Such is a sad and major consequence of what we as
|> >> humans chose for ourselves a long long time ago.  
|> 
|> True, you say God did not create that world that way.
|> We chose it.
|> But God is omniscient.
|> He knew we would choose it.
|> Yet he created it anyway.
|> 
|> God knew that the world would be a disgusting place to live
|> with all its death. Yet he did it anyway.
|> 
|> Even more important, about the soul...
|> 
|> God created all this to let us choose him or choose Hell.
|> But he knew that most of us would choose Hell.
|> He knew, that by starting this mad experiment, that he was
|> effectively condemning most of humanity to eternity of torment.
|> This is certainly not a good thing. More like evil.
|> Yet God is supposed to be all good.
|> 
|> The very foundation of Xtianity is total crap. As shown above.
|> Of course, most Xtians are somehow blind to this.
|> 
|> Warren.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Childhood
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:47:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175717.10011@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>A truly child-like faith would have no Hell.

You must be even older than I am. . .  :) 
Of course parts of childhood are `hellish'. . .

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wagnerp@cuug.ab.ca (Paul Wagner)
Subject: Janexx
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:52:28 GMT

I am wondering whether anyone on this list might be familiar
with the name "Janexx".  Recently one of my students confided
in me that she was practising what amounted to chaneling and
automatic writing.  Apparently, the spirit involved named
him/herself as Janexx.  Has anyone ever encountered this name
before? Curious.  Paul Wagner  wagnerp@cuug.ab.ca



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:35:43 GMT

swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
: In article <1993Jan1.091825.16976@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >That is what some sects teach - certainly. However, even the KJ version
: >of the Bible is misinterpreted. An example: One of the 10 commandments
: >is "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Now, may sects believe that
: >this says that you will only worship "God". They refuse to read what is
: >actually there - it does not say that. It only says that "God" will be
: >your primary deity - nothing more. It does not, in any way, prohibit the
: >worship of other deities.
: 
: Exodus 20: 3-5
: you shall have no other gods before me.

This is no prohibition. I have already addressed that.

:   You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything
: that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or is in the 
: water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
: for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity
: of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.

This has nothing to do with the argument - it is a straw man.

: Exodus 34:14
: for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous,
: is a jealous God.

This might have some meaning. I will have to check my Bibles. Maybe our
scholar at Brown will comment on this - from primary sources - not the
politically correct babbling (for the time) if the KJ version (which is
frequently the basis for more recent versions.

: (From The New Oxford Annotated Bible)
: I dunno, seems pretty straightforward to me. Other gods are right out.

It remains to be seen.  You have presented one part of one verse. We will
see how the discussion proceeds.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: 1/4/93   God's Promise in Isaiah 43:25
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:44:24 GMT

In article <C0B3Jy.5w3@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	I, even I,
>	am he that blotteth out thy transgressions
>	for mine own sake,
>	and will not remember thy sins.
>

	...if you do the following:

[lengthy list of useless and arbitrary regulations mercifully deleted]

	and if you don't, then it's off to hell you go!

	See how nice I am?

>	Isaiah 43:25


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:29:49 GMT

>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 29-Dec-92 Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE
>B.. by 621-9615@lpl.arizona.edu 
>>    I'll state my point first then back it up.  The point is this.  
>> Ultimately, we as humans have chosen death over life.  We had preferred
>> cancer and old age a long time ago.   The four year old girl gets what
>> she has inherited from the beginnings of humanity.  Death.  Suffering. 
>> It is sad.  Truly a pity.  But guess what?  God didn't create it that way. 
>> He originally created us to live forever.  God doesn't dole out cancer
>> to 4-year olds.  Such is a sad and major consequence of what we as
>> humans chose for ourselves a long long time ago.  

True, you say God did not create that world that way.
We chose it.
But God is omniscient.
He knew we would choose it.
Yet he created it anyway.

God knew that the world would be a disgusting place to live
with all its death. Yet he did it anyway.

Even more important, about the soul...

God created all this to let us choose him or choose Hell.
But he knew that most of us would choose Hell.
He knew, that by starting this mad experiment, that he was
effectively condemning most of humanity to eternity of torment.
This is certainly not a good thing. More like evil.
Yet God is supposed to be all good.

The very foundation of Xtianity is total crap. As shown above.
Of course, most Xtians are somehow blind to this.

Warren.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/5/92   God's Promise in John 4:36
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	And he that reapeth receiveth wages,
	and gathereth fruit unto life eternal:
	that both he that soweth
	and he that reapeth
	may rejoice together.

	John 4:36
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Rebel Presents His Case, or Satan Speaks
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:59:35 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <C0q4zs.2Fz.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>As told to Drake (who takes all responsibility for the opinions thus
>presented):
>
>>Look, it's like this. Do you want to sign up in God's army? There
>>are broken people out there that need God and no one wants to get
>>out there and help them.
>
>There are broken people who need a *life*, not the chains of slavery
>that your God offers them.

>The above message was dictated to me by Lucifer himself.  Any errors in
>spelling, grammar or punctuation are mine and mine alone.  I take
>responsibility for posting the message, since H.I.M allowed me the
>choice of whether to type it or not.

Hmm... Kalmoth the Vile pays no homage to the Lord of the Dark, but
he feels certain sympathy for His case. When I see a fight, I feel
like joining it on the side of the guy that is going to lose. Satan
is fighting God against all odds - so my sympathy is on his side.

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:41:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.221709.23945@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.130916.13803@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>>(5:51)" O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians
>>for your friends and protectors:
>It certainly sounds like it.  (Nor does this "better" translation sound any
>better then the "incorrect" one.)

The word in the Quran is "awlia" which means ally NOT friends and certainly
not protectors. Whether the injunction was for muslims of the time (in view
of treason by the jews) or extends to others, I can't say. It is also meant
to refer to muslims as a whole and not an inividual basis. The verse above
is incomplete since it explains that they (being jews & christians) are allied
to each other and don't have the welfare of muslims in mind.

>>Verse (5:57) explains it better:
>>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>>(5:57)" O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors
                                         ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^-see above
>>those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, - whether
                                                ^^^^^-games
>>among those who recieved the Scripture before you, or among
>>those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith
>>(indeed)."
>>|> "Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their
>>|> persons a higher rank than those who stay at home....The
>>|> unbelievers are your sworn enemies....Seek out your enemies
     ^^^^^^^^^^^-those of Quriash or all unbelievers? You have to look at the
context of all verses!


Zeyd

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism