HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.082916.311@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>    I believe that the Bible is a diverse collection of literature
>    that contains the following literary devices: literalism, allegory,
>    metaphor, parables, prophecy, and poetry.  (Not intended to be
>    an exhaustive list.)
>
>    When the Bible is written literally, I take a literal meaning.
>    When it is allegorical, I take an allegorical meaning.
>    When it uses metaphor, I take a metaphorical meaning.
>    When it records parables, I take an illustrative meaning...[how
>	about a parabolic meaning?  :) ]
>    When it records prophecy, I take a prophetical meaning.
>    When it is poetic, I take a poetical meaning.
>
Is there general agreement about when an allegory _is_ an allegory, a metaphor
a metaphor, a prophecy a prophecy? For example (not being too au fait with 
either testament I'll use an obvious example), is the story of Adam and Eve
to be taken literally, or is it an allegory? 

>    Jim B.	   Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

Cheers

-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:17:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug25.080155.27593@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.231033.14013@mprgate.mpr.ca> siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca 
>(Curtis Siemens) writes:
>
>   >Sorry to burst your proof, but ACTUAL INFINITES do not exist.
>
>   On the contrary, actual infinites do exist. In fact there are
>infinitely many atoms in the universe. Or perhaps you have an
>a priori argument to show that there are not?

This is not true.  If there were an infinite number of atoms in the universe,
then there would be an infinite mass for the universe.  The universe could
not expand, and would, in fact, collapse to an infinitely dense point 
unless the universe, itself, were infinitely large.  If the universe had an
infinite size, expansion would not make sensebecause it is meaningless to
double or add 1 to infinite systems (who'd notice it?).  Current evidence
suggests that the universe is expanding.  Most theories state that the
universe started from a small point.

Maybe this thread should be redirected to sci.physics.  There are more
astro-physicists there that could explain this better.

>
>   >If an actual infinite did exist, then
>   >I could do ordinary math with that quantity, and produce an
>   >infinite (concept here :)) amount of contradictions.
>
>  This is on the face of it nonsense.
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:58:13 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

In article <l9l1g9INNl6d@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
>Do you not despair that one day the "you" that is uniquely
>you will be gone forever?
>
>Dano

The "me" that was uniquely me years ago already is gone forever.  The "me"
that i am today will soon be gone.  Such a notion of Self is illusory, and if
you give up that illusion you have no reason to fear death.

If i could believe in a permanent, unique "me" then i could also believe in
immortality and maybe even in god.

-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge
ethridge@bnr.ca                    Bell-Northern Research, Inc.
my opinions are my own             Richardson, Texas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:09:38 GMT

In article <BtnAGE.8G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
>>However comforting it might be that you don't care about
>>the legal status of a marriage, tax collectors, health insurance
>>providers, and the Social Security Administration provide
>>off-the-top-of-the-head examples of people who do care
>>about the legal status of a marriage, and whose interest
>>in the matter has non-trivial practical consequences.

>Isn't this the problem, then?  Rather than expand the legalities of
>marriage and divorce to another group of citizens, I advocate dropping
>state-sanctioned marriage altogether.

In the UK, single people are also discriminated against in this way. 
Unfortunately, any political party who revoked such tax laws would be seen to
be anti-family, and we all know that no party wants that.

Cheers



-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:49:11 GMT

In <92238.165251A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET> A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET (Jacqueline Cote) writes:

>A few weeks ago there was an article in a local newspaper that an Australian
>scientist (I forgot her name),

Her name is Barbara Thiering.  Calling her a scientist is false.  She's
a part-time lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at the
University of Sydney.

>who had studied (part of) the Scrolls claims
>that they state that Jesus *did not* die after his crucifiction, was revived
>with mirre and some other substance, and continued to live for another
>30 years, travelling around and telling people about his visions. He married
>Mary Magdelen and had three children with her, two sons and a daughter.
>After the birth of his second son, he apparently left her to marry a Greek
>female bishop (?????).
 
>Does anyone else have heard this story? If it *would* be true, it would
>have spectacular implications and it would also shed light why little
>to nothing is known to the world about the contents of the Scrolls.....

To make her conclusions true, you have to make some amazing
assumptions.  Her research is nonsense.  There is no reputable scholar
on the Dead Sea Scrolls who will agree with her.  What's worse is that
she refuses to accept that she could be wrong, and dismisses all
arguments against her theories (at least, when I hear her on the radio,
that's what she does).

As one reviewer said of her work, don't waste your money.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:58:20 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
: (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
:  How horrible was it for you before you were born?  I expect death
:  will bring the same exprience.  I worry more about having some
:  medical problem that leaves me unable to pursue my interests yet
:  cognizant of my misery.  I worry more about leaving my estate secure
: 
: You write about how your death may affect others in an (IMO)
: intellectual way, but do not mention how you _feel_ about your
: death.
: 
: Do you not despair that one day the "you" that is uniquely
: you will be gone forever?

I think I can honestly say it doesn't bother me.  I will admit that
I get a warm fuzzy when I think about the atoms of my lifeless body
rejoining the cycle of life.  I guess this is my eternity. Of course,
I won't be around to realize it.  I'm afraid I can't justify it any 
better than that.  Fear of dying is something that fled my mind fairly
quickly upon becoming an atheist.  Maybe I don't have the dread of
going to Hell because I wasn't a good enough Christian.  This makes
some sense too.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:47:34 GMT

In article <24AUG199215212484@chemvx.tamu.edu>, lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug24.192653.1294@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes...
|> }lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
|> 
|> [...my own stuff deleted...]
|> 
|> }they don't mention that in the past the christian church has blessed
|> }same-sex marriages.  Return to tradition values!!
|> 
|> I don't suppose you would have a reference to that? I'd really like to
|> be able to use that information in an argument.
|> 
|> }-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
|> }-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
|> }-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
|> }------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->


Boswell, John(?)  He has one book out on the history of the church's dealings
with lesbigays (Chsistianity, Social Intolerance, and Homosexuality) and I 
believe is working on a second.  Some of his findings have not been pubished 
yet, but he has lectured on them and I think there might be video tapes
available.  
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov)*       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush no friend of atheists (but Clinton no better)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:53:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Aug27.152053.15655@mcc.com> ai.amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>[political disclaimer follows]:  BTW, this is _not_ to say I support
>Bill Clinton in the upcoming election.  I've never heard either of them
>talk for more than 5 minutes on policy or programs before saying
>something with which I violently disagree.  I dread the next four years
>under the leadership of whichever wrong-headed, philosophically corrupt
>power-seeker gets the majority of votes this November.

I think Clinton is the far superior alternative to a candidate whose party is
falling further and further into the clutches of its right-wing religious
faction.  Clinton may be religious but at least he's not trying to weaken the
separation of church and state with the money-for-private (i.e. "Christian")
schools that Pat Buchanan was pushing, and the whole family values non-issue
the Republican leadership has decided is the most important.


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religious Leaders Want God Kept Out Of Politics
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:18:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a2@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Excerpts from an AP report printed in the "Valley News" on 9/1/92:

Several of Vermont's religious leaders have joined forces in calling
for an end to the use of religion in presidential politics.

...

In a statement signed by 13 religious leaders around the state, the
group said, "We begin with the proposition that God is Neither a
Democrat or a Republican, nor for that matter, American.  God
transcends all national and political affiliations."

"Identifying the Kingdom of God with any political party or candidate
is as presumptuous as it is foolish.  The framers of the Constitution
wisely provided that there be no religious test for public office."

"We call upon the candidates to honor both the spirit and letter of
Article VI by refraining from further attacks based upon religion"

...

Nationally the concern has been aimed primarily at President Bush and
the Republican Party.  Bush had criticized the Democratic Party's
platform for omitting "three simple letters: G.O.D."

The National Council of Churches drafted a letter criticizing the
partisan use of God's name.


-----------end of report-------------

Has anyone seen the National Council of Churches' letter?  I'd like to
read it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:01:50 GMT

ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:

>I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
>I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
>that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
>not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
>the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
>exists or not?

[stuff deleted]

>Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

Well, God is relevant to some people.  Some people need the comfort against
the envirnoment.  Some people need to be assured that they will be eternally
happy (since their life on Earth is so miserable).  Some people want
to feel happy when someone dies...  hmm...
Well, perhaps you should ask someone  in whose life God plays a major
role.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Libertarian candidate Andre Marrou: who is he?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:05:12 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Distribution: usa

In article <9kvy!bp@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>   Sometimes its frustrating to see a post like the one above that
>completely ignores a choice that fits this person very well.  And
>that is the Libertarian Party candidate, Andre Marrou.
>   If everybody who didn't vote for him just because they think it would
>be a throwaway vote, actually did vote for him, we might actually get enough
>votes so that the press couldn't ignore the Libertarian Party anymore.
>   Unfortunately, when you combine the level of inteligence and the level
>of apathy in this country, I don't see this has happening.

The only reason right now that I'm not even considering Marrou is that
I know nothing about him, and I've never found anyone who _does_ know
anything about him.

Maybe you can help.  Who is Marrou, and what does he stand for?  What
are his views on religion, abortion, domestic and foreign policy, the
drug war, the deficit, and other mainstream issues?

What exactly is the Libertarian party?  Where do they fit in on the
broad spectrum of right versus left?

Is there a file with this information that you could post?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Twin Peaks Junkie    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:26:12 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Aug31.113929.24152@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>Is atheism experimentally refutable?
>I suspect that atheism is not experimentally refutable, and therefore must
>be classed as a religion or faith, which is surprising.  ...

Are you sure you know what atheism is?

>What it comes down to is this: how could a god prove their godhood?

It's hard.  But even if a god can't prove his godhood, he could provide
evidence which suggests the possibility.  Just demonstrating some supernatural
power, for instance resurrecting some dead relatives of mine, would be a good
start--and certainly better than no proof at all, which is what we have now.
A god could certainly provide evidence for his existence equal in quality for
the evidence, for instance, that the sun is made of hydrogen, even though we
can't _prove_ that it's not a big ball of gold during the moments when nobody
is looking at it.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:39:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>Actually, the Holy Trinity all drive Furys. I quote from Genesis, " ...
>>and the Lord DROVE Adam and Eve out of the garden of eden in a Fury." No
>>A/C back then either, must have been one hell of a drive.

Pretty neat considering that it was a Fury that Steven King decided to
make possessed in "Christine."  (Actually, it was a Belvedere, cos
Furies didn't come in red, but if he had said Belvedere in the movie, I
wouldn't have had this opportunity to post this to the net, at a cost of
hundreds if not thousands of dollars.)

Blessings,
Janis
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: god is not relevant
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:38:50 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
exists or not?

Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?

Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge
ethridge@bnr.ca                    Bell-Northern Research, Inc.
my opinions are my own             Richardson, Texas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:10:56 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>
>    Good point.  I personally use a combination of orthodox doctrine,
>    intuition, and guidance from the Holy Spirit.  That last is the
>    most important, however.

Considering that the Holy-Spirit is part of your imagination, akin to intuition
and orthodox doctrine is whatever orthodoxy you happen to adhere to, this 
leaves you quite a latitude for interpretation. 
An important point is that these are old texts that have been translated many
times, which brings into question the translators line to "the holy spirit"
and even their translating abilities. These translators could be literal
minded boobs for all you know...

[irrelevant semantics deleted]

>    My philosophy of interpretation forces me to seek out internal
>    consistency within my chosen method of interpretation.  And

Hope you read greek, aramaic, and hebrew... Also hope you have much
FAITH in the unknown translators of the bible...

>    additionally, there must be reasonable correlation with real
>    life events.  These constraints, along with the idea that the
>    faith and doctrines as defined by the early church should be
>    more indicative of the writers' intent than doctrines and
>    traditions which were developed later, forces me to accept
>    some interpretations that I may not personally like, but I
>    have to accept if I am going to remain true to these principles.
>
>    So no, I don't pick the interpretation(s) that make me most
>    comfortable or least uncomfortable; I pick the ones I have
>    to in order to maintain internal logical consistency, correlation
>    with real events, and agreement with early church doctrine.

Where's your line on early church doctrine? Some ref's would be appreciated.

>    =======================================================================
>    Best Quote of the Month:  (Pres. Bush to Saddam Hussein)  "Look Saddam,
>    either you're going to let our inspectors into your ministry buildings,
>    or we're going to drop ACLU lawyers over Baghdad...WITH PARACHUTES!!"
>    =======================================================================
Yah, they might just give the Iraqis some individual rights. Saddam would
hate that, almost as much as Bush....

-Scott


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? (continued)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:47:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.212236.24748@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
}If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar,

Might as well stop there at your first line.  Since it can be easily
demonstrated that it _IS_ conceivable, nothing subsequest logically
follows.

sheesh.
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades, once more into the breach!
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:33:29 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>  Why is it so dangerous for many Christians to admit that perhaps they
>>  are wrong?
>>    Is it?  Let's see.  "Perhaps I am wrong."  Hmmm.  No lightning.
>>    No hard drive failure.  Everything seems OK.
>>  I am quite willing to admit that God may exist, and
>>  will change my opinion accordingly if new evidence becomes
>>  available.
>>    So does that make you an agnostic?	Or a "weak" atheist?

(Ryan M. Grant) writes:
>I'm not interested in disproving the Bible, but the "weak athiest" 
>reference shows a lack of appreiation for the scientific method.
>The scientific method takes its strength from concentrating on correct 
                                                                _______
>theories.If any theory is proven incorrect, it is virtuously tossed aside
                                  _______
>in the quest for truth, instead of hung on to as dogma.  I too would 
>believe in God wholeheartedly if He were proven to exist, and being a 
>strong athiest, I look deeply into all peas to believe.  Since I honestly
>look but do not find evidence for God, my athiesm is only made stronger.
>				Having an open mind is not weak,
>				- Ryan Grant

May I suggest Ryan that you look at the meaning og the word "correct"
in your sentences. You seem to equate "scientific correctness" with
truth - in which case I suggest you start reading some books on the
philosphy of science.

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
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 1992 12:50:20 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: assholes

Well, I _do_ reject God altogether.  I am firmly in the belief (yes, I
use that word intentionally) that THERE IS NO GOD!

David
dh4j@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism