HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.164358.14814@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr15.145011.8722@infonode.ingr.com> jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com writes:
|> >
|> >If your neighbor is a "fundie", watch out!  They are _really_ scary people.
|> >They will continually jump up and down while screaming Biblical verses
|> >at the top of thier lungs.  They will try to convert you forcibly at every
|> >opportunity, always trying to ram their beliefs down you throat.  And they
|> >are completely unreasoning about everything.
|> >
|> 
|> 	Congratulations,  thats a pretty good description of the type of
|> fundamentalist (of whatever religion or lack thereof) that is pain to have
|> around and definitely no fun at parties ;-)

Yeah, I don't much care for those actions myself.  Those kind of
emotions just don't go very far with a group like we have here in
hsv.religion.  In fact, they are a liability.  But it does work
for some people.

Actually, if you want to go back to the dictionary definition, a
fundamentalist is not described as one who jumps up and down...

My original question:  "What is a fundamentalist?" was intended
to obtain a common definition of the word, so that we are all
talking about the same type of person when we talk about a
fundamentalist.

Now, for a modest proposal:

How about when we talk about a fundie, we mean one of those people
that jump up and down screaming....

And when we talk about a fundamentalist, we mean one of those people
who believes in the literal intrepretation of the Bible.  I know,
the word fundamentalist causes undo wear on the keyboard, but the
distinction is important to me, and should be important to y'all as
well.  (The dictionary definition.)  This does not mean that a 
fundamentalist cannot be a fundie, and vice versa, in which case I
would label the person as a fundie (since a fundie is obnoxious,
and does not give a good image to fundamentalists).

From now on, I promise to draw this distinction between a fundie and
fundamentalist.

|> |--------------------------------------------------|
|> |  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|> |  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|> |--------------------------------------------------|

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:40:19 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

JW> bang?  Why would he give us fossils of creatures that never would
JW> have walked the Earth if we were only 6000 years old as planets
JW> go? 

Simple, the earth is older than 6000 years old...


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:07:43 GMT

In article <-duTq*ZJ0@presto.UUCP>, random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) writes:
|> Well I ask you this.  If god exist why does he hide himself from
|> everything?  Why doesn't he make himself(herself) more visible?
|> Why all the superstion?
|>
|> Would it not be better, for example, to scribe the 10
|> commandments on the moon for all to see?  Or have the voices of
|> the angels echoing, instead of the background hiss of the big
|> bang?  Why would he give us fossils of creatures that never would
|> have walked the Earth if we were only 6000 years old as planets
|> go? 

Many people see evidence of God in the creation surrounding them.  They
find it ridiculous that the intricacies of living things could come about
by chance and natural selection.  Perhaps the question is not "Why isn't
God's work obvious?", but "Why don't you percieve it that way?"

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Reply-To: presto!random@uunet.uu.net
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:00:15 CST
Organization: I'm Just Me.

In article <4374.29E152E3@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian Walters writes:

>  
> I don't know that I'd use the death penalty for child molestation cases.
> I think something more creative and exotic may be in order :) Tattooing
> "child molester" on his forehead, and make him go to PTA meetings once a
> month for the rest of his life :)
>  
> >Who said "an eye for an eye" was passe?
>  
> If I remember right, Jesus did. :) Confucius, I think, had a good
> saying: to your friends, give love - to your enemies, give justice. I
> think Confucius would have liked Clint Eastwood. :)

Now this is something I think we can learn from the bible.  Bring
back a little biblical justice:)


--
"If winning is not              // Jeff Hyche           
 important, then            \\ //  UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!random
 why keep score?" Lt. Worf   \X/   GEnie: J.HYCHE
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.175437.18631@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.181122.12255@infonode.ingr.com>, nik@infonode.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
>|> 	Not at all, my attitude is open minded,  I neither accept or deny
>|> the possibility that it is true until evidence is available.  The Bible may
>|> well be the direct word of God,  nothing I've seen in my 31 years has 
>|> gone anyway towards convincing me. Only a fool either accepts/denies the
>|> truth of something without evidence,  to so do is is an act of faith only.
>
>I'll ask you the same question I asked Christian Walters.  What sort
>of evidence would convince you?  Later in your posting you kind of
>discounted the possibility of a miracle.  If a miracle wouldn't
>convince you, what would?
>

	I think the parting of the Red Sea would do ;-),  that is the whole
point, I can't state definitively what would suffice as a miracle until 
there is an adequate definition of one.  Also I would have to see it for myself,
reports from a book written several thousand years ago which sound somewhat
unlikely are not sufficient.


-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: That sin thing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:11:59 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Les Bartel says:
>> Part of it may be the word "infinite." Christians typically view God
>> as a being that encompasses all things except evil. Well, if you say
>> that God will do no evil, then you are placing a parameter on an
>> infinite being, thus rendering him finite.
 
>What is infinity minus 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
 
>By definition, it's still infinity, isn't it?
 
True, although I have difficulty seeing your point. What is
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 divided by infinity? It's
zero, right?



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: hsv
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:50:59 GMT

jimc@cobabe.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jim Cobabe) writes:

> I would suggest that the only way to argue with someone who is dogmatic
> about using "logic" is to demonstrate how illogical and unreasonable
> things are in the real world.  There are just too many aspects of life
> that are totally illogical for any intelligent person to believe that
> they can depend entirely upon logical thinking.

Examples?

Well, anyway.  This may be a good tool for persuading the logical person
that not everything can be boiled down to syllogisms, but I hardly think
it will tip him/her to your point of view on any given topic.

Any discussion that proceeds without use of logic or at least common sense
seems doomed to futility:

"You should live your life according to the teachings of the bible,
a book that was divinely inspired by the one true god."

	"Explain it to me."

"I can't explain it, you have to feel it."

	"I don't feel it."

[End of discussion.]

Or...

"I can't explain it, you have to feel it."

	"Oh, yes.  I feel it now."

[Prolonged session of mutual admiration...]

Either way, it's not very interesting.

--
david wiley                  "It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds
Intergraph Corporation        could go one way or another."
205-730-6390                               - George Herbert Walker Bush
wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: re: That sin thing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:03:30 GMT

I can respond to this fairly quickly, I'll get to others later.

In article <4498.29ECEEFC@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> James Reed says:
|> >We aren't able to fully understand God.  My daughter isn't able to
|> >fully understand me.  While we're at it, I don't fully understand my
|> >wife. Yet the relationships exist.
|>  
|> None of you are infinite :) Y'see, not only do I think it's impossible
|> to fully understand an infinite thing, I think it's impossible to
|> understand it AT ALL.

Isn't space an infinite thing?  If not, explain the boundary :-).

I may not fully understand space at the universal level, but I do
know how big my office is :-).

|> The mind can't cope with the vastness of it, the
|> limitless possibilities of it all.

Even if we can't cope with all of it, we can still grasp some of it.

|> That's why people create things like
|> purposes and commandments, to get something they can grasp out of it.

Or God created things like that for the exact same reasons.

|> In
|> my opinion, anyway. I also think that's why people make a god that is so
|> anthrocentric (is that a word? It should be), so they can feel a part of
|> something infinite, instead of nothing, which anything compared to
|> infinity is.

For the purposes of this discussion, there's no way to determine whether
people make a god or whether God made people.

|> People compare the God-Man relationship to that of Parent-Child, but
|> this doesn't fit with established ideas. It would be more like
|> Human-Dust Mite, except the dust mite in this case is infinitely larger
|> than we are comapred to an infinite god.

Parent-child is not a perfect description of the God-man relationship.
For example, we will never grow up to be God.  But the analogy at least
helps us get some sort of a grip on the truth.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: tim@tim.ingr.com (Tim Anderson)
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Reply-To: uunet!ingr!b23a!tim!tim
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:58:22 GMT

In article <-duTq*ZJ0@presto.UUCP>, random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) writes:
>Path: spm!ingr!sci34hub!presto!random
>From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
>Newsgroups: hsv.religion
>Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
>Message-ID: <-duTq*ZJ0@presto.UUCP>
>Reply-To: presto!random@uunet.uu.net
>References: <4414.29E45CD1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>
>X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
>Lines: 29
>Date: 14 Apr 92 00:15:08 CST
>Organization: I'm Just Me.
>
>In article <4414.29E45CD1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian Walters writes:
>
>>  
>> Ack! Logical fallacy. Lack of reason to believe the contrary is no
>> reason to believe anything.
>>  
>> >Not many people know the real difference.  Agnostics don't care if
>> >there is a god or not.  Atheist just say there is not and be done
>> >with it.
>>  
>> Actually, many of us agnotsic types do care if there is a God. We just
>> admit we don't know.
>
>Well I ask you this.  If god exist why does he hide himself from
>everything?  Why doesn't he make himself(herself) more visible?
>Why all the superstion?
>
>Would it not be better, for example, to scribe the 10
>commandments on the moon for all to see?  Or have the voices of
>the angels echoing, instead of the background hiss of the big
>bang?  Why would he give us fossils of creatures that never would
>have walked the Earth if we were only 6000 years old as planets
>go? 
>
>Simple logic.  I ask a question.  Can you give me the answer?

God is a visible as a thought, or an emotion, or the wind.  Why isn't
air red or green so we can see how to breathe.  God doesn't hide from
anything - He is omnipresent. Don't confuse superstition with faith - 
they are not the same thing.

Why don't we have billboards everywhere with all the manmade laws
posted, so we don't do anything that might break those laws - because
being "visible" doesn't lead to obedience.  

Pre-Deluge scripture does mention creatures that could be descriptive
of dinosaurs - and if you believe in the Big Bang, you rely on just as
much faith in something as a Christian (or didn't you know that you cannot
prove there ever was a Big Bang).
 
--
       ______________________________________________________________________
      /                                             /                       /
     /  Tim Anderson  ( uunet!ingr!b23a!tim!tim )  /  Shift to the left,   /
    /  Systems Product Marketing                  /  Shift to the right,  /
   /  Intergraph Corporation                     /  Push 'em, Pop 'em,   /
  /  Huntsville, Alabama  35807-4201            /  Byte, byte, byte !!! /
 /  Mailstop: LR23B4    Phone: (205) 730-8503  /                       /
/_____________________________________________/_______________________/
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:53:28 GMT

In article <4413.29E45CCE@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Jim Cobabe says: 
|> >>Why is a "show-stopper" more of a miracle than something mundane?
|>  
|> >No logical reason that I can put my finger on.  Some of these things
|> >just seem to be more impressive to me.
|>  
|> I am held in thrall by your deductive reasoning ability :)

Fortuanately, I was not engaged in this discussion to demonstrate my
mental prowess.  :-)    You have probably heard the cynical witticism
that goes something like "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance,
then baffle them with bullshit".  I much prefer plain honest discussion
on a level that I understand to getting lost in a blizzard of technicalities.

|> Are you saying that miracles are a subjective thing? So you can say
|> "Zounds! Look at that!" to your companion, and he can say "So what? It's
|> only an air-to-ground lightning strike emanating from a nearby
|> cumulonimbus cloud." Have you seen a miracle, or his he an insensitive,
|> cynical dunderhead?

I understand that some religious groups are bureaucratic enough
that they form committees to investigate so-called miraculous
happenings.   I don't agree with this practice, because it smacks
to much of circus side-shows.

To answer your question about subjective experiences, yes.  A
personal experience is always subjective.  _You_ might want to
say that everything in life is quantifiable and logical, but I have not
found this to be true.
 
|> Or if he says "That's amazing!" and you look and say "What's so amazing
|> about a hummingbird feeding out of a sunflower?" Who's the cynical
|> dunderhead now?

Cynicism is subjective too.

|> >I think you probably understand this argument from an intuitive
|> >perspective.
|>  
|> Don't bet the rent money on that one :)

I see from your responses above that you understand what I am saying
about miracles, but cannot seem to believe that I am serious.   Perhaps
the problem is that my understanding is different from that of other
Christians.  Not too suprising to me though, as I have often found that
my views differ significantly from others.

|> >I suppose this is less than satisfying to the "Spock" aspect of your
|> >character, but there it is.  :-)
|>  
|> My Spock side is quite used to being frustrated during religious
|> debates, thank you :)

Yes, well "May your journey be free of incident".  :-)

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       |                                |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: presto!random@uunet.uu.net
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:56:36 CST
Organization: I'm Just Me.

In article <4405.29E36143@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian Walters writes:

> Ah, we've struck another one of my snags with Christianity. This notion
> that all humans are going to sin. If we've fallen short of God's
> standards simply on the basis of being born human, then either God made
> substandard parts or he allowed defects to creep in. The position that
> we're all supposed to apologize or atone for these "God guaranteed sins"
> strikes me as odd, to say the least.

I have this problem too.  What is wrong with being human?
--
"If winning is not              // Jeff Hyche           
 important, then            \\ //  UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!random
 why keep score?" Lt. Worf   \X/   GEnie: J.HYCHE
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:42:47 GMT

In article <4412.29E45CCC@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> The first chance I get, I will look at his book. It would be unfair of
|> me to discredit him because he is unconvincing in person. :)

No to advertise for any particular store, but...

I'm sure that the Family Bookstore at Madison Square will either have it
in stock or be able to order it.  The Baptist Bookstore on Governor's
should also, but you might prefer not to be seen there :-) :-) :-).

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: re: adam and eve
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:32:07 GMT

In article <4488.29EBD48B@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> James Reed says:
|> >No, He originally planned for Adam and Eve to trust Him enough to avoid
|> >something He instructed them to avoid.
|>  
|> Then why did he make such a tree and put it there? To test Adam and
|> Eve's faith? Doesn't God's desire for them to not eat from it symbolize
|> a desire to keep them from seeking knowledge?

He put it there so that they could choose to follow Him or not.  It may
symbolize a desire to keep them from seeking the knowledge of good and
evil, but I wouldn't generalize that to all knowledge.

|> Does God ever come out and announce himself as the Supreme Ruler to
|> them? She had no reason to trust God's word over anyone else's.

Of the four "participants" in Eden, none questioned God's identity.

|> Sorry, but this sounds like overjustification to me. I don't believe the
|> ability to choose evil is a necessary requirement of free will. I wish I
|> could fly out of my chair unaided and swoop around the skies like
|> Superman. But I find that even after much concentration that I cannot.
|> Does this mean I don't have free will? Of course not. So if I can still
|> have free will while lacking the ability to fly, why can't I still have
|> free will when lacking the ability to do evil?

You don't have free will when it comes to flying like a Superman.  You
have no option.  The decision to not fly is forced on you.

If God had not given Adam and Eve a command they would not have had
free will with respect to obeying God.  In fact, without a command,
they could neither obey nor disobey.

|> Well, God did all of that stuff in Genesis 3 to A&E because they chose
|> evil instead of what God had intended. Then he does the same thing to
|> Jesus later on. There's no pleasing that guy :)

The whole point of Jesus dieing on the cross was that His death did
please God.  (I can hear the "why"s already :-)

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jazz@jazz.b11.ingr.com (J. Jeff Roberts)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jeff@jazz.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Distribution: hsv
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:05:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.194711.15441@infonode.ingr.com>, jimc@cobabe.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jim Cobabe) writes:
|> Arguing about things that are in the Bible is a very good example of my
|> point.  You cannot argue with an atheist about religion by quoting from
|> scriptures that he does not believe in.   It is not that "this point is hard to
|> get past", but that it is impossible.  One cannot begin a successful argument 
|> from an unsupportable premise.

"Impossible"?  Is the idea that "God made all this and here's what he has to
say about it" so incredibly less defensible than "Well, there was this big
explosion millions of years ago and, you know, here we are"?  Why is it we can
talk about subatomic particles whose existence we can only infer from their
effects but not the idea that all of this intricacy has a purpose and a designer?

-- 
==============================================================================
J. Jeff Roberts              jazz@jazz.b11.ingr.com             (205) 730-6155
   God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.  Ps 46:1
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: hsv.religion