HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:41:54 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Aug27.161056.29832@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Exactly.  It certainly looks to me like intelligence, at least our
>brand of it, has been a disastrous evolutionary failure.  There's no
>reason to suppose that nature will make the same mistake again.

	Um, If I'm not incorrct, evolution takes a LOOOOONG time.
	And when it does, you cannot tell all at once.  As in, maybe
	those with that ayn rand-style of thinking are going to die out, 
	and the ones who give a damn about the land are not.

	Maybe there are a lot of different types of humans, and the ones that
	die out are just the old type.

	I would say that we have probably evolved within the last 2000 years,
	though the diffrence seems small.  At least compared to 20,000,000 years	of human existence.

	Homo Urbanis, if you will, has made a big jump, for example, and it is
	people who can handle such a life that will be neede to survive on,
	say, space stations and such.

	Maybe Homo Sapiens (thinking man) is dying out in favor of Homo 
	Sentientus (WoMankind aware of Hir surroundings)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Think of that
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:54:44 GMT

	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Various Religions
Date: 4 Sep 1992 15:23:41 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1888f7INN2ej@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>So solely on the grounds of thinking that the Bible contains
>fiction, Christians are not distinguished from those of other
>religions, nor from atheists.

Well, sure, that's true, but then almost every book contains both truth
and fiction.  The point is that the central messages of the Bible, e.g.
that God exists and appeared on Earth as Jesus and so forth, are considered
true by Christians and false by atheists.  Incidental errors in passing
(like where it says in effect that pi = 3) aren't significant to
reasonable Christians just as historical truths (like mentioning that
certain ancient cities existed) aren't significant to atheists.

R
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:48:09 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

[I don't have access to alt.atheism, so I have to delete it from my reply.
If one would like they can forward this over there.]

In article <Bu24Hp.1J4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
>give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
>	-- Abraham Lincoln

Could you give the context in which Lincoln said this - PLEASE.

This wasn't quoted to supposedly say that Lincoln did not believe in God,
was it?

I believe Lincoln used the Bible often and so quoted from it.  He proclaimed
national days of fasting and prayer.

I cannot on my on attest to Lincoln being a follower or not of Jesus the 
Christ, but I can say that the 'Christianity is not my religion' phrase could 
be said by many, including myself, for we don't consider it a religion, but
a relationship to God through Jesus the Christ and what he has done for us.
Others would call it a religion.

I have the following quote cited on a poster, which pictures a beautiful
scene of the sky

  "I can see how a man could look on the earth and say there is no God,
   but I don't see how he could look to the heavens and say it." 
   -- Abraham Lincoln - [that may not be the exact wording, but its close.]

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 25 Aug 1992 17:48:32 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.034455.24650@en.ecn.purdue.edu>  
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
 
>> You are probably right [about not checking out Islam].  I have tried to  
>read the Qur'an a few times but it
>> seemed to always speak in riddles and never say anything  
>matter-of-factly.  
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>     I would recommend the Dawood translation as a start (published in  
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would not.  I've picked up his translation and it does not compare to other
author's efforts.  Muhammad Asad's translation is far better, and it's
around ten bucks.  Free if you ask me to send a copy.  Asad is a known
scholar of Islam: Dawood is not.  Is knowledge of Greek the only
prerequisite for publishing a translation the Bible?


>Muslims. Ignore those who claim that "only those who truly understand the  
>Arabic language, i.e. Arabs, are capable of properly understanding and  
>interpreting the Koran." That's like saying that because the Gospel was  
>originally written in Greek, only Greeks are capable of properly  
>understanding and interpreting the Gospel. Any good, literal, English  
>translation of the Koran will suffice.
 
Agreed.
 
>Arthur Johnson
>johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
>"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me." -- the Jesus Prayer   
 
Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics,sci.anthropology
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:21:43 GMT
 <l9kp31INNkto@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <adams.714763375@spssig> <l9lk3kINNlqo@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>(Steve Adams) wrote in reply to Paal Sternberg:
Nope.  This is a misattribution.  Sorry.  I don't know who wrote it.  (I
always spell 'Lucifer' with an 'f'.  And most everyone knows I insist that
God created evil.

Someone else wrote the following:

>   Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it, or
>   is the author of it.  The bible plainly says that Lucipher is the father
>   of it, and not God.  Why does everyone always blame God?  Imagine God
>   creating an angelic being with a mind, and emotions, etc...  could that
> 
>I replied:

>  This is called "begging the question." If god created everthing,
>  including satan, then god also created evil; worse, if god is
>  omniscent, then god knew what god was doing. . .

>Steve added:
> 
> And?  So what?  If God wished to have freely given worship and love, the
> logical possibility of not loving or worshping had to exist.  As such, I
> don't see why there is such a big problem.  If we are to have a free will,
> the possibility of sin had to exist...or there never truly was free will.
> 
>So, you admit there is evil in the world* (even if it was to
>allow humans 'free choice') and you admit that god created "everything" 

>This seems to contradict your earlier statement:

>   Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it...

>This is the point Paal Berg was apparently trying to make.

To have written what you attributed to me, I would have had to have been
out of my mind.  I consistantly insist that Isaiah 45:7 clearly says that 
God created evil.  And given the scriptural evidence, I say that we are to 
blame for actualizing it.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:25:08 GMT

tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
: It seems to me that as soon as you admit error, it becomes very difficult,
: 2000 years removed from the actual events, to decide which statements about
: Christ and His ministry are true and which are not.  If you admit to error
: in the NT, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the supernatural
: events, i.e., the resurrection.  If you admit to error in the NT, the an
: objective basis for faith disappears, and true faith soon disappears as
: well.  The gospel narratives becomes just so much whimsy, tossed about
: by the lastest pontifications from higher critical blowhards and others
: in the theological establishment.

Another example:
From my reading of Matthew, it is obvious that he took OT quotes
out of context to establish the messiahhood.  If the authors
are capable of misquoting to gain converts, how authoritative
should we believe them to be?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Wells)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unitarian Christianity
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:15:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Well, this is my two cents.
 
>It should also be noted
>that the UUA is a "covenanted" organization, as are a large number of
>the protestant denominations.

Yes, but the UUA is (or was) in a tradition which the Pagans do not
share. I have talked to many UU's who think that the traditional
inclusiveness of the Unitarian and Universalist traditions has been
stretched to breaking. Covenants are contracts made between persons
(or persons and God or other intity) based on a commonality of action.
These same UU's don't mind the Pagans as a group, but resent that they
should expect to be incorporated into the Unitarian Universalist
tradition. Our tradition is valuable, and should not be given away to
anyone who asks for it. Buddhists don't ask for room in the
Presbyterian church, nor do Adventists seek ties with Hindus ? Why
should this be different.

UUA attention has focused so much on the inclusion of the Pagans and
similar movements that many traditionalists feel crowded out.
One-quarter of All Soul's Church in New York (if I'm not mistaken)
voted to disassociate from the UUA on one part of this question.

That's "the difference that so arouses my ire."

Scott Wells
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:01:30 GMT
 <l9kp31INNkto@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug25.180426.7129@ac.dal.ca> <adams.714835421@spssig> <l9ncabINNo58@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) missatributes:

>(Steve Adams) writes:
>          Clearly evil was created by God, along with everything
>	  else.  It is a ...
I wrote this.  I have been consistant in writing this!

>AHA! This is what I was waiting for :) This seems to contradict
>your earlier message (Article 66640 in my rn) of:
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  

>          God simply CANNOT be responsible for evil.  If he is,
>	  then the whole of the bible is false.  I refuse to
>	  accept that.
I did NOT write this!  This is Steve Gross.

You are MISATTRIBUTING THE QUOTES!  I did make the first statement.  Steve
Gross made the second!

Once again, I, Steve Adams, say that God created evil.  The conclusion is
inescapable.  Steve Gross wrote the second statement.

Jeez, this is the second time someone has misatrributed statements to me
that reflect badly....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unitarian Christianity
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:39:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 2a04e7ead6e06e6fd62bd8c1c5c1665b

In article <la7i8cINN7di@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
>Again, agreed. Remember too, that there is an organization
>called CUUPs (Coven of Unitarian-Universalist Pagans).

Bzzt, *wrong*   thank you for playing.......

The organization in question (CUUPs) is an affiliate member of the UUA
(Unitarian Universalist Association) which is the denominational
association for the UUs, The Universalist (mostly in the SE USA), the
Church of the Larger Fellowship (mail-order UUs :-), the UU Christian
Fellowship, and The COVENANT of UU Pagans.

It has always been the Covenant (not Coven).   It should also be noted
that the UUA is a "covenanted" organization, as are a large number of
the protestant denominations.

What is the difference that so arouses my ire?

A "coven" is a specific organization of "Wiccan" and other similar
religions.  (Generally anything arising out of the Gardnerian or Crowley
traditions.)  It is a specific organizational structure, usually with a
definite leadership.

A "covenant" is a statement of principles and positions which a group of
folk hold in common.  The Constitution of the United States of America
is a "covenant", as is the Declaration of Independence.

I have posted the UUA Covenant here once upon a time, and once I get the
"sources" section of the document added to my copy of the text, I will
do so again.

For those interested, there is a UU Mailing list (subscribe UUS-L to
LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU).  There is also some preliminary talk of a
newsgroup for UUs and similar religious groups.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC         [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...duke!wolves!wolfe    <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu    wolfe@cds.duke.edu
    Above all, we celebrate.   Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:03:00 GMT

Stephen James writes to Stephen Buckley:

>please do not continue this preaching here. 

PREACH: 1. to deliver a sermon 2. to explain in a tiresome way 3. to
use arguments to which an alt.atheist can find no counter-arguments.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:23:51 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews) writes:

 If the bible said that the sky is red or
 the moon is made of green cheese, you'd believe it, dammit!

---- This is true enough, but not very likely as God does not lie.  I
believe the bible is the inerrant word of God in its concepts and ideas. 
The translation is a touch inaccurate because after all, the people who
wrote it are only human.  Since I believe every part of the Bible to be
true, then I would have to believe the sky to be red and the moon of green
cheese.  That is pretty consistant don't you think?  Just because it
doesn't match your standards of consistancy, does that mean it's wrong?
(sfg)


>If this is truly all that your religion boils down to, then I want no
>part in it.  I refuse to believe in a god that gives me the capability
>for logical thought and then sets up the universe so that I will be
>tormented for eternity if I use that capability.


---- That is the trouble with you and many others like you Bob.  
"I refuse to believe  [ any reason imaginable stuck in here ] "  

You and other people like you who refuse to believe or cannot believe, or
won't believe for whatever reason are all the same.  You think that you
can find a rational explanation for God and for Salvation, and for
everything else on the planet.  Well, YOU CAN'T.  There is no explanation
for it, it just is.  Salvation is a stumblingblock for you, and always
will be because you can't take anything on faith.  Since Salvation is the
central theme of Christianity, it too will always be a stumblingblock for
you.  Not that you should feel bad though.  There are plenty of people who
were better than you burning in hell right now saying that Christianity is
not real.  And, as will likely be the case, you will join them.  Too bad
really.

Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15362 alt.atheism:16316
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith/belief
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:51:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: appserv.la7ielINN7e5
Organization: Hmmmmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Ken Arromdee) writes:

>"Try something to see if it works" is not the same as "believe"....

Good point.

Dano
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Date: 24 Aug 92 23:33:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> 
> Hi all... I am back from an AWESOME summer.  Just a few observations:
> 
> 1.   This group never gets anywhere with any of the discussions and
>      arguments are never decided.
> 2.   The only thing anyone learns is how to defend themselves and
>      maybe (just maybe) a little theology.
> 3.   The honesty and willingness to learn and change is severly
>      lacking in many poster personalities.
 Yes!!!

> Fear not!  I think that we can "get somewhere" as a group if we agree
> to approach one question at a time from the ground up and search our
> souls and ask God to lead us in seeking him.  We must not be victims
> of a "seared conscious" in all of this!  I am assuming that there are
> spiritual absolutes.  If you do not believe this then you should not
> be reading or posting to this group because after all everything is
> relative so you can seek God however you want... Bye.

Well, then the honesty and willingness to learn and change should 
also contain the notion that agnostics and atheists have valid points,
and that the approach to ask God to lead us is wrong. You know,
objectivity is a very hard task.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:53:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BtF70w.1C8.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>There is nothing unique in Egyptian funerary scenes about lion-headed biers
>with canopic jars under them, a man bending over the deceased, and a bird
>hovering nearby.  The *only* element in the undamaged portion which I
>haven't seen is the raised leg, and I've really only been consciously
>looking in museum collections for about a year now. In fact, there's a mummy

Well Karl, look a little closer!  In the undamaged portion, there is
not only a raised leg but also at least one raised arm!!

Is this significant?  Well even by your own admission, the scene
depicted in this and countless others (in museums all over the
world) is suppose to be of a *dead* man.  Wouldn't it be strange
for a *dead* man to have both his leg and arms raised?  Perhaps he
was not yet dead?  Even if this is the *only* difference as you put
it, wouldn't it completely change the entire meaning of a supposed,
"funerary" scene?  Doesn't this also make Joseph Smith's restoration
of the damaged portion more consistant with the fact that the leg
and arm are raised than simply pasting on what is found in the "dead
man" scenes?  Clearly Joseph Smith interpreted the scene better than
anyone who claims that it is just "another funerary scene".


Robert
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:17:49 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <Btovtp.D0n@agora.rain.com> mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>A friend of mine came up with this set of criticisms of Christianity:
>
>Good behavior, or moral behavior comes from doing what God says.  This
>is similar to a parent teaching a child, "X is right because I say it
>is right, Do X because I say to." or worse,  "Do X or God, (or I) will
>punish you."
...

The Christian life does parallel the life of a human, from birth to
maturity.  There are often things one has to say "DON'T DO X" - later
one can teach the person to not do X because it is not the wise thing
to do, for it is not living a life worthy of the calling we have received.

>The other major tenet of Christianity she has a grievance with is the
>guilt trip, "Jesus died for your sins."  "I didn't _ask_ him to die
>for me!"  she says.  As well as, "I don't want my sins to be just
>_forgiven_, I want to live responsible and responsible for my actions."

In fact it is recorded in the Scriputures that Jesus died for us while
we were 'yet sinners' - that is we didn't deserve him dying for us,
whether we asked him or not.  His death for us, without any worthiness
on our part, is what is described as love beyond measure.  Some would
die for a friend, but Christ died for us while we were sinners.

>She really wants a religion which emphasizes taking responsibility for
>ones actions and not blaming your _choices_ on fate.  Granted you may
>not have that many good options, but between the ones you have you
>ought to do the best you can.  Any religion that encourages people to
>be so satisfied with the status quo that they can't try to improve things
>is a net loss.

I'm not familar with this 'be satisfied with the status quo' idea, I don't
think.  However, Scripture tells us that evil thoughts come from within
and not without.

   Mark 7:20   He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him
      'unclean.'
   Mark 7:21   For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil
      thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
   Mark 7:22   greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander,
      arrogance and folly.
   Mark 7:23   All these evils come from inside and make a man
      'unclean.'"

>Morality, what is right, comes from human beings and how they interact.  It
>just doesn't make _sense_ to claim it comes from anything else.

And if you think some thing else tempts you:

   James 1:14   but EACH ONE is tempted when, by his OWN evil
      desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
   James 1:15   Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to
      sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

>Michael Sandy

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism