HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: ISLAM REVEALED #2 - The Origin of Allah
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:07:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.184721.16758@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:

Is there any point to any of this crap? Allah is an arabic contraction of
"Al Ilah" meaning "THE GOD". There was an idol called al-lat which is supposed
to be a female deity.

>THE ORIGIN OF ALLAH
> 
>_Encyclopedia of Religion_, ed. James Hastings, I:117
>  "`Allah' is the pre-Islamic name...corresponding to the Babylonian Bel."
> 
>_Encyclopedia Brittanica_, I:643
>  "Allah is found...in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam."

There aren't any arabic inscriptions prior to Islam. Vowels were not added to
arabic till after Islam. The reading of arabic before then is subjective.

>_Encyclopedia of Islam_, ed. Houtsma, I:302
>  "The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped...a
>supreme God called allah."
> 
>_Encyclopedia of Islam_, ed. Gibb, I:406
>  "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan
>deities."
> 
>_The Bible and Islam: or, The Influence of the Old and New Testament on the
>  Religion of Mohammed_, Smith, pg. 102
>  "Allah was already known by name to the Arabs."
> 
>_Islam: Beliefs and Observations_, Caesar, pg.28
>  "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to
>the Muslims from the Christians and Jews."
> 
>_The Islamic Invasion_, Morey, pg. 50
>  "In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as
>the male god....the moon god was called by various names, one of which was
>Allah!"
> 
>_The Islamic Invasion_, Ibid., pg. 51-52
>  "Archeologists have dug up numerous statues and hieroglyphic inscriptions
>in which a crescent moon was seated on top of the head of the deity to
>symbolize the worhip of the moon god....The Quraysh tribe into which
>Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god....This,
>in part, explains the early success of Islam among Arab groups that
>traditionally had worshipped the moon god."
>-- 
>Frank
>....
>"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
>"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:15:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.192340.9601@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>He made us in His image.  He

More likely and plausably, we created him in ours.  What makes humans so damn
special that a supposed God would create us in his image?  I think it's just
human self-importance that impels believers to the "Man in God's image"
philosophy, in an attempt to explain away our insignificance in the grand
scheme of the universe.

>What more do you want
>God to do?  

Come here in front of me and prove to me that he exists.  Maybe he's just to
chicken to do so......

>He has gone the second mile for us but most of us still refuse to 
>meet Him halfway.
>
I haven't ever seen him do anything for us.
From: parker@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Origin of XMAS tree and XMAS wreath?
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:47:01 EST


In <1haf5rINN8e8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
responded:

>In a previous article, viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) says:
>
>>Does anyone where and how the Christmas wreath and the
>>Christmas tree originated?  Is it Christian? Is it
>>Pagan? .....???
>>
>
>The tree is a relatively recent thing.  It originated in Europe, as I
>recall.  Wreathes, on the other hand, are very pagan.  They are generally
>yonic symbols.  (The yoni is the female sexual organ....)
>

According to "Our Pagan Christmas", by R. J. Condon: [My comments bracketed]

     Egypt, Babylon, and Rome all made use of the tree in their winter
solstice festivals. In Egypt it was the palm, and in Rome the fir, while
the sacred tree in Babylonia was the perfect counterpart of our modern
Christmas tree, as we learn from Jeremiah 10:2-4:
     Thus saith the lord, Learn not the ways of the heathen...For the
     customs of the people are vain; for one cutteth a tree out of the
     forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They
     deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and
     with hammers, that it move not.

     Then as now, it was a young tree, and it symbolized the new-born sun.
There was a mystical connection between sun and tree, for as Ovid tells
us in his Metamorphoses, the mother of the sun-god Adonis was changed
into a tree, and brought him forth while in that state. The old, dead sun,
stripped of its power and glory, and cut down nearly to the ground, is
represented on a coin of the period [a drawing of the coin is reproduced
on this page] as a tree stump, an empty cornucopia further emphasising
the unfruitfulness of the winter sun. Around the dead trunk coils a serpent,
emblem of renewed life, while alongside sprouts a young palm tree, as the
re-born sun. Palm or fir, the same idea underlies both. Hence the placing
of the Yule log on the fire on Christmas Eve and the appearance of the
little Christmas tree the next morning. Christmas fires, and the lighting
of candles perpetuate another pagan custom, encouraging the sun in its
weakest hour with their heat and light. [End of excerpt]

+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|        Gary Parker        |       E-Mail: parker@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com      |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                      Men make gods in their own image                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Allen-Bradley Company,|
| its parent company, or subsidiaries.  Your actual mileage may vary.        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: Is the Roman "Church" really a church?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:38:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.165034.2752@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>Is the Roman "Church" really a church at all?  Here is what John Calvin
>had to say.
>
>	" ... But on the contrary, they (Romanists) disown from their
>	 communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants
>	 of Christ.  Accordingly, either Christ's promise is vain, or
>	 they (Romanists) are not, at least in this regard, churches ..."
>	                                           - Institutes 4.2.10
>

While this is a good point, it's a bit bound by the historical sifting of
that age.

I've often thought Protestant arguments conceed too much to Roman
Catholicism. They say the Pope is the head of the church, and we go ahead
and belive them and evaluate the church based on the pronouncements of her
"head". But if they're wrong we shouldn't do that. Revelation shows churches
in various cities/locations. Jesus evaluates each individually,
threatening judgement on the bad ones.

There may indeed be good, bible beliving roman churches. I know of some that
do admit any to communion. Some don't go quite as overboard in error as
others. We should evaluate on a  local level (it may be just as bad though).
We should work with other churches on a local level. More things will get
done and more unity will be fostered than through comittee "dialogues".

There is alot of sifting going on in the Church at large. Who know's who
will emerge from it whole.

paul duggan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Basics of Islam
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:59:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.205249.11764@kth.se>, d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:

[much deleted...]

>So to every nation there was sent a guide with the message of submittance to
>God. Some Muslims Scholars even clame that Budda might have been a Prophet 
>sent by God, but that his followers changed the religion to something else.
>It is the same thing with Hinduism...

This is interesting.  In my pre-Christian days, I believed that all religions
were the same and that the various religous founders were merely messengers
from God to different cultures.  Is this similar to what these scholars claim?
How do these Muslim scholars support this
view?  In reading surah 2 (as far as I've read so far so feel free to point
out my ignorance), the idea that Jews, Christians, and followers of John the
Baptist (Sabatians or some word like that) were on the "right track" was 
presented but I saw nothing about non-Middle Eastern religions.  Everything
I've seen (glancing ahead in the Qur'an) seems to focus exclusively on
the Middle Eastern religions as being based on the truth.

>Jesus (pbuh) himself wasn't called Christ in all his life.
>He called himself the Messiah. The word Christ comes from the greek Christos 
>but the "os" has been chopped off to make it unique. Alot of Christians seem
>to walk around with the idea that the word Christ has something to do with 
>crucifixion or something the similiar.

Christos and Messiah are the same word, or at least one is a translation of
the other:  Maschiach (forgive my spelling) is the Hebrew and Christos
translates it to Greek.  Messiah is the Anglicized version of Maschiach and
Christ is the Anglicized version of Christos.  Peter called Jesus the Christ.

>I'll post an article called Islam at a glance to give you a small hint 
>to it...... InshaAllah (Godwilling) it may help you....

Thanks.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:21:34 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec31060601@bast.sics.se>
	<ksand-040193164356@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-040193164356@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >I think I'm trying to make a more deep point about validation of 
   >statements than something like 'plain truth'. See earlier postings.

  You can make whatever deep points you like. However, as long as the
purportedly deep points are made by rejecting, using some undefined
and non-standard terminology of your own, the perfectly clear and
correct remarks on logic and Christianity made by others, what you are
doing is babbling.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<root.726423512@spssig>
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:51:41 UTC

In article <root.726423512@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>[on free will]
>>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>>believe in free will... ;-)
>That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
>least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.

Yes, but Sean would also say that *everything* is an illusion, and of
course, he would be correct, but that's easy for him to say, if you know
what I mean. These things are all necessary tools, needed to negotiate
this thing we call reality. Freewill, knowledge of good and bad,
perception of you/me, etc are all required in order to live and to move
on. One must first realize there is no God in order to realize that
there is and one must first realize there is a God in order to realize
that there is not. One must go down as the underman in order to rise as
the overman in order to go down again as the underman, etc. These things
are all cyclical and are purely illusionary, mere navigational tools.
But the student must know the tools and know them well before moving on,
beyond the tools, well, you know the flavor. Be seeing you, and by the
way, I am not a number.
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.24
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:17:21 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 24

                              sanjaya uvaca
                          evam ukto hrsikeso
                           gudakesena bharata
                        senayor ubhayor madhye
                         sthapayitva rathottamam

  
sanjayah uvaca--Sanjaya said; evam--thus; uktah--addressed;
hrsikesah--Lord Krsna; gudakesena--by Arjuna; bharata--O descendant of
Bharata; senayoh--of the armies; ubhayoh--both; madhye--in the midst;
sthapayitva--placing; ratha-uttamam--the finest chariot.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	Sanjaya said: O descendant of Bharata, having thus been addressed
by Arjuna, Lord Krsna drew up the fine chariot in the midst of the
armies of both parties.

  
                                PURPORT

	In this verse Arjuna is referred to as Gudakesa. Gudaka means
sleep, and one who conquers sleep is called gudakesa. Sleep also means
ignorance. So Arjuna conquered both sleep and ignorance because of his
friendship with Krsna. As a great devotee of Krsna, he could not forget
Krsna even for a moment, because that is the nature of a devotee.
Either in waking or in sleep, a devotee of the Lord can never be free
from thinking of Krsna's name, form, qualities and pastimes. Thus a
devotee of Krsna can conquer both sleep and ignorance simply by
thinking of Krsna constantly. This is called Krsna consciousness, or
samadhi. As Hrsikesa, or the director of the senses and mind of every
living entity, Krsna could understand Arjuna's purpose in placing the
chariot in the midst of the armies. Thus He did so, and spoke as
follows.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  :)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:40:53 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan8.165146.14614@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>Wow!  I didn't expect to get so many responses and on so many varying levels of
>opposition.  I expected the opposition to my stated beliefs, but not so many.
>I would like to thank all of those netters who have responded.  Since there have
>been so many responses to my posts, it may take me some time to get back to you
>but rest assured that I will.
>
>And, oh yes, I've figured out and have been told quite vehemently how NOT to
>post to the alt.atheism group.  It seems that I've riled them up quite a bit, but 
>I honestly can't say that I'm bothered by it.  However, I won't abuse the net
>any further by posting to them that don't want to hear.

Malcolm, please try to be honest.  You were not asked to refrain from
posting to alt.atheism; you were asked to refrain from PROSELYTIZING
in alt.atheism.  Hopefully, you can see the difference.

As to being "riled" up, this is true.  The reactions to your messages
in alt.atheism were similar to the reactions to a houseguest who 
urinates on the carpet, for similar reasons.  The vague and tangential
responses you made to our arguments didn't help our attitude,
but they did earn you a place in the Richard Pitts Hall of Obfuscation.

>I am especially thankful for those with whom I've been able to have some
>constructive dialog.
>
>Thank you all once again, and I'll be back!

Stay in t.r.m, and all will be well.

-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:44:38 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.171719.18343@sequent.com>, petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
|> jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >>
|> >>God wants our love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by
|> 
|> Why does (s)he need my devotion ? Why shouldn't I put that energy into
|> other things that help others living ?
|> 
Our love is the one thing that He cannot have unless we give it.  And it must be a sacrifice made willingly.  Why does He need our love?  Why does anyone need love?


|> >>tithing and attending services, and giving of ourselves.  But these
|> >>things come as a result of being a Christian.
|> 
|> Are you saying that my time with helping others, donating material and
|> time to my community and/or to those that need help (rather than building
|> another church) etc, etc, that I'm can't successfully do these things
|> with out being a christian ?
|> 
|> -pete
|> petel@sequent.com
I'm say that as Christian, we are able more freely give of ourselves.  In my previous years as a non-believer, I was a very selfish, self-centered individual.  Only through the example of Jesus Christ have I been able to give of myself to others and come to terms with who I really am.  I still have more to learn but I know that my Lord is with me all the way.

Thank you for your post.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:39:03 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Re: Free Will

At the moment, I have about three threads going on this topic, and me
doesn't like repeating the same arguments over and over.

So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.
 
If you want to know why you don't have free will, it's because the "you"
that you think has free will is an illusory product of a self-referential
thought trap, like the speaker in "This sentence is false."

A human being is not an _actor_ but an _event_. 

Please note that this is not an argument for any kind of materialistic 
determinism. I am not trying to deny that people make choices. We do. 
But the "we" that makes choices is an _event_ that is necessarily
beyond the reach of our choices. 

In simple terms: _it is impossible to not be spontaneous_. Paul Harvey
advocates: "Just do it."  Well, it is impossible to _not_ "just do it."
You just try and not be spontaneous some time!

Dixi!

Thank you. This pronunciamento on the Ultimate Nature of Reality was brought
to you by:

Sean Hartigan 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

and the number 3.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Freewil was The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:29:34 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fXFLZCy@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 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! 

Heh heh...:) I hope all the free will advocates out there practice this
same procedure, otherwise, heck, they are abdicating their much
prized free will 99% of the time!   But wait! If you have to freely
choose to exercise your free will, how do you make _that_choice?

Oh, I hate it when I get all confused.
 
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

As private parts are we to the Gods:
they play with us for their sport.
- Blackadder II
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:18:32 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>I can see how, yes.  Understanding that you reject free will, helps me to
>better understand where you are coming from.
Not 'reject,' question...

[on free will]

>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>believe in free will... ;-)

That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.

 -STeve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25819 alt.pagan:15238
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:21:21 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1993Jan10.191022.8050@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k087682@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Scott A. Martin) writes:
>All these quotes about a "jealous God" sometimes make me wonder why
>people choose the Christian religion.  Doesn't exactly sound like a
>deity I'd like to devote my soul to.

Its called "fear."

>
>Scott Martin            Kalamazoo College

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25541 alt.pagan:15100