HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:33:00 GMT

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).

Unfortunately, this post never made it to my site (the above text is
from a follow-up to a follow-up).  As the subject is addressed to me,
I feel I should reply.  Would someone who has a copy of the complete
post mail it to me (g-skinner@uiuc.edu)?
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:04:26
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Aug09.145819.26597@digibd.com>
	<1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<RLK.92Aug12123953@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Aug12.191800.23758@csrd.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.191800.23758@csrd.uiuc.edu> skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

   (Clarification: My basic problem with Mr. LeRoy's assertion is with
   the "death penalty" part.)

Death penalty or otherwise, an awfully large number of Christian groups
seem to get amazingly uptight when the subject of protecting gays
against discrimination comes up.  From what I can tell, they're usually
relying on Leviticus for that point, whether they specifically advocate
the death penalty or simply advocate that discrimination against gays
should go unpunished and gay bashing shouldn't receive much priority
when it comes to police work...

   I think it's safe to suggest that Mr. LeRoy would say that Judaism
   prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts as well.  None of the
   following matters to him, as for him one defines a religion without
   regard to the actions or beliefs of its adherents.

That's an interesting thing for you to say, given that you have
consistently said that Christianity is defined by the Bible (presumably
the New Testament, to be specific), not by what those who claim to be
its adherents say.  Or does my wording "those who claim to be its
adherents" vs. your "its adherents" make the difference?
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:50:35 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ABRsEZgOx9@apm.magadan.su> austin@apm.magadan.su writes:
>I thought that some of you might be interested in hearing from a
>professional observer how the marriage of atheism and communism has worked
>out.

I'm interested in hearing from you what you understand by "communism",
because for me this word means a social order which has not been
observed yet, professionally or otherwise.

>Yes, the marriage of Communism and atheism  did not produce good fruit.

This is the second time you mention this "marriage".  What do you mean
by that?  The country where you are now was misgoverned over several
decades by a group of people who happened to be atheists and who for
some reason chose to call themselves "Communists".  Is that it?

>In the name of atheism and progress people were forced, tortured
>and killed.

Now pray elaborate on this.  What does it mean to be forced, tortured
and killed "[i]n the name of atheism and progress"?  And how does this
prove that atheism and progress are evil, and that religion and
backwardness are good?  Is that just how the people in the streets feel?

>We need to humbly approach a subject of supreme importance, the
>existence of God, and we need to be promoting goodness and kindness so
>that people can find hope.

We may, however, fail to agree that the existence of gods is a subject
of supreme importance.  Peradventure we could use the effort that we
would put into that discussion for something more immediately useful.

>Magadan should have 50 Orthodox churches in it to
>service it large community.  It has only one.

Good.  When we are satisfied that it has an adequate number of
schools, hospitals, sports centres, theatres, museums, etc., we may
think of encouraging the erection of another church.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: goose and gander
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
}law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
}covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.

Oh goody!  Might I then freely discard anything previous to that time that I
wish?  Say, the entire OT?

}He had nothing more to say.  I await his
}retraction.

Interesting.  Ever since I pointed out the contradiction between your
statement concerning the impossibility of having fr** w*ll and an accurate
bible, when combined with your declaration that Jesus is the Word of God
(along with accompanying discussion) directly implies that either
fr** w*ll (whatever THAT is) or Jesus could not both exist you have not
been heard about.  While awaiting your retraction I shall not hold my breath.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:28:43 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug12.162520.256@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> 
>> Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
>> possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
>> your math is wrong.
>
>Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.
>
>Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
>an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
>It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
>Jackpot Winner.
>
  Sorry Jim, you should have stuck with purely theological
  arguments.  That way we might have not so easily seen how foolish
  you argument was.  Your math is indeed wrong.  Aren't  you aware
  of convergent infinite series?  Probability thereoms?  Beware,
  what often seems reasonable to the layman has no bearing on the
  truth of the matter, especially in the realm of mathematics.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:47:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug21.094202.296@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>
>Graham, the point I was making is that Doug is labelling me into a
>classification to which he (and others here) attach additional
>connotations not applicable to me.  I may very well be a "fundie",
>but I'm not what Doug and many other here mean when they say "fundie".

  The classification I've always heard that labels one as a
  fundie is a Bible literalist.  Do you qualify?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Jesus Jokes
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 19:04:47 GMT

In article <8eTJv5W00WB6QAYpN7@andrew.cmu.edu> David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>What's with the "faggot-jew" bullshit ! You got a pro-
>>blem with people who are Jewish or gay, are you a biggot or are
>>you some kind of asshole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>Get a life.
>
>Or are you _so_ sensitive that you can't take a little fun being poked?

I would almost feel the same way, except that I can't understand why
the Jew in the joke had to be a "fag".  It did appear as if the original
poster was doing a bit of gratuitous Jew/gay bashing, which added nothing
to the joke.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: A question of morals (Was Re: Islamic revolution)
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:49:23 GMT

(Kevin Nechodom) writes:
>>Is there objective moral reality?  Assuming that it does exist, how is

I will go out on a limb here and say that an objective moral reality does not
exist. As far as I can see all moral systems come down to guessing at the
axioms that will underly the system - and how can you measure the objectiveness
of these axioms?

As an example of a moral system, consider any moral system based on 
Christianity. The underlying axioms of such systems are a) god is moral
andfd b) god is honest (aassuming his existence).

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:44:58 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.

I like to restrict the term    murder   to killing of humans
that's all folks


+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  The trouble with having an open mind is that people come along and |
|  put things in it.   {attribution? I nicked it from Readers Digest} |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug14.142630.7708@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes...

>I'm tired of these lunatic ravings. I think I'll stop here.

Agreed.  Has the original poster of these ravings ever replied?  I don't seem
to remember any replies.  Guess his posts are the rough equivalent to running
into a room with eyes shut and ears covered, and screaming out one's views, only
to run back out of the room...

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mcgead@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
Subject: Bush quote?(not the FAQ atheist one)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:37:51 GMT

    I could have sworn that I just heard on the radio that George Bush has
said something to the effect that 'You cannot be President if you don't
believe in god'.  Has anyone else heard this?  I'm sure that they weren't  
referring to the 'atheist quote' from years back.
  

-- 
Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:25:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.142438.8656@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

>>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
>>of Jesus?
>
>We'd have to work out any contradictions, giving precedence to Jesus
>in the final analysis.

Well, I think we'd better do some working out then.  Suppose that I
was in a position to make laws, and that I made a law which said the
speed limit shall be 55 mph and anybody who exceeds it shall be shot.
Then I get run over by a truck.  Now Paul comes along and says that 
since Doug has paid the price, the old speed limit, although it still
exists, is no longer enforced.  Paul says that since we are now living
under Grace, the speed limit shall be 65 mph and anybody who exceeds it
will get a speeding ticket.

Is it fair to say that the teachings of Paul contradict those of Doug,
or do we sit back in awe of Paul's tricky word games, and allow that
the teachings do not really contradict?

>>>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>>longer under the law, but under grace."
>
>>But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
>>Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
>>who was God?  
>
>(Correction: Son of God.)

Pardon me.  I do get confused at times.

>Christianty holds that he does not override
>Jesus.  Jesus said that he would not change the law ("jot and tittle,"
>as you say).  Paul says the penalties have been paid.  The law remains
>unchanged.

Alright, let me make sure that I've got this straight.  First, we have
Jesus, the great moral teacher, the Son of God, whose teachings all
Christians claim to follow.  Jesus teaches on a number of occasions that
he has no intention of changing the Law.  Seems pretty straightforward to
me.

Then Paul comes along and cooks up some story about penalties being paid,
and that the Law is irrelevant -- Grace is where the action is now.  Of
this, Jesus never mentioned a peep.  I suppose I can accept that this is
Christianity, but I think then that it may be stretching the truth quite
a bit for Christians to claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus.

>The question is, Does Christianity still prescribe the
>penalties associated with the law?  Because Christianity holds that
>all penalties have been paid, I think the answer is "No."

I think the answer has disappeared in a blur.  I think the answer is
whatever our priest says it is, and can change daily depending on the
aspirations of our priest.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:04:18 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.182201.28629@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

[flames the net.surveyers Chris & Susan Colvin to ashes]

>Simon, cut the crap, OK?  As someone else pointed out, this post was
>gated through Compuserve and the original posters will probably never
>see your caustic wit.
>
>So why did you respond to this stuff?  Was it to beat your chest and
>provide a good show for the approval of your atheist peers?  How
>clever of you!  Seize your chance to take the oath, fly the flag, and
>salute smartly -- what a *good* atheist you are!  ;)

What you say is clearly true, Jim.  Simon's flame is not exactly what
alt.atheism is for, and Chris & Susan Colvin (1) most likely won't see
it anyway, (2) won't profit from it if they do (which they might if
they had any sense, but we know they haven't), and (3) don't deserve
that much attention.

But I must say that I enjoyed reading it.  My sense of humour doesn't
have to be the same as anyone else's, of course, but I think it was a
good joke, and I also think we all could use a joke from time to time.
And since there was no reason for Simon to share his reaction with me,
I am glad that he posted it here.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Dial-an-atheist
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:21:20 GMT


	Does anyone have a number for it ? I live in NorthEast Ohio.
That is the 216/Cleveland area :-)

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:07:36 GMT

In article <92229.005444U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>  You know, don't you, that the roman catholic chruch has now conceded
>that the shroud is a hoax?  This is after speding much time, money and
>effort promoting it as proof of their faith.  All the supposed authentic
>details have been shown
>to be fabrications( he,he ) and distortions.  Plus on closer examination
>it can be discovered that the shroud is painted.  Hehe.
I don't remember the Church spending a lot of time and money
promoting the shroud as proof of their faith.

When, pray tell, did they do this?
-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.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 11:20:25 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
> In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
> 
> I like to restrict the term    murder   to killing of humans

Not as helpful as you think, as the law is rather slippery when it comes to
defining what it means by a human.  Ask talk.abortion.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.201550.15888@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.000224.5519@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>
>My religion says that paying taxes is a sin.  Does the First Amendment protect
>me?

There are plenty of tax scams around that will ordain you as a minister in
their church and permit you to declare your residence as church property.
That will shield you from some taxes.

If you wish to claim your religion prevents you from paying _any_ taxes
I suggest you contact a lawyer.  I'll be _very_ interested to learn how
your case turns out.

BTW, if you truly want to pay no taxes, that's possible.  Take a vow of
poverty and live in a state that doesn't charge sales tax on food or
medicine.  You'll still get hit by Social Security if you earn _any_
money, but it isn't a tax.  So it _is_ possible to live with your religion.
It may not be easy, but that's your problem.


To address the serious point you skirted, paying taxes is a (quasi-)
reasonable burden shared by all citizens equally.  Telling an Amerindian
he can't take peyote (even when his legally recognized church agrees to
restrict peyote consumption to 'bona fide' members of the congregation),
but the Catholic church should feel free to provide alcohol to anyone
who walks in the door appears a violation of the Freedom of Religion
clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the
Fourteenth.

To spell it out, the Supreme Court upheld a _regulation_ of a federal
agency over two _Constitutional Amendments_.

>Mr. Giles earlier claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
>somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
>paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
>cause this ruling?

I made no such statement.

One observer asked why anyone should care that President Bush _stated_
(he did not retract his statements later so it was _not_ a misstatement)
that he didn't consider atheists citizens.

I offered several examples of non-Christian rights being trampled, the
Amerindian peyote case one of them.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: A Defense of Reason (Part 1)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.071505.26528@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, knechod@stacc.med.utah.edu (Kevin Nechodom) writes:

> And for those of you that are familiar with Josh McDowell, and I know
> many of you are:

Oh no, not HIM.
 

> 1) A man was hung on a cross,
> 2) That man died.
> 3) He was later resurrected.

> "Without the benefit of the Scientific Method, you have to rely on
> Historical Evidence."
> 
> "Historical Method involves finding the Reliable Witness."
> 
> For me to quote the Bible would be ludicrous now, because I have not
> given any basis for it to be considered a Reliable Witness (tm).  But
> I contend that such witness exists.

Isn't the point of this posting that you *were* going to give us the 
rational reasons for your beliefs? So why do you back away from doing so
here? Or do we all have to wait until Part Two before we get your historical
analysis? If it's anything like Josh 'hyperoxysophistical' McDowell's, then
I can't wait to reply!
Tim O'Neill

P.S. 'hyperoxysophistical' is a word coined by Thomas Love Peacock meaning
'to make repeated use of plausible-sounding but ultimately invalid or
incorrect arguments'. Sounds like most creationists and fundamentalists that
I know.