HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:44:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Well, unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is that they
(fundamentalists) will NEVER simply let us alone.  My roommate while
I was at Georgia Tech was a drooling fundie and I point blank asked
him once "Why aren't you ashamed of yourself for bothering so many people
and laying on guilt trips all in the name of Jesus?"  His answer was that
I wouldn't feel ashamed if I saw a person in a burning building who needed
my help -- I would go right in and and rescue her.  Of course, he's at 
least saying that atheists can be heroic when they want to be!  :) 

What was even more annoying was my born-again brother demanding I 
say a prayer at the dinner table!  Of course, he's my brother, so I
just hit him.  ;)

So there is no hope of being left alone bye fundamentalists -- we just
have to make sure our rights are preserved (and theirs too).  It's
kind of ironic to me, our new President and his wife are Southern Baptists
and they're probably more in tune with being on our side then their
fellow Baptists!  But if you're worried about Pat Robertson, just
download a copy of Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican National
Convention for some real excitement.  That's a lot scarier than a
televangelist in my opinion -- especially when you consider the
political influence Buchanan has.  I mean, Robertson ran for 
president once but back then they knew better than to give him a
platform at the convention, right?

--

Carl Christensen                      christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Department of Computer Science
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA  19122   USA         (215) 735-6787
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Monday, 4 January 1993 22:36:37 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <root.726157205@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)  wrote:
# pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# >adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
# >>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# >>>You think what you know is the absolute right, the absolute truth. 
# >>Almost every religion makes this claim, implicitly or not.  That it holds
# >>the one, true way, and is the sole possesor of God's truth.  Christianity,
# >>Islam and Judaism sure do...
# >
# >This statement is not correct. This kind of dogmatic thinking is largely
# >limited to the two great conversion religions: Christianity and Islam.
# Hardly 'not correct'...first of all, I said 'most,' and secondly, all three
# of the ones I pointed out fit the bill (ie those that make up >95% of
# western religion.  In any event, a religion is basically a system of
# truths, which generally rejects other systems of truths.

  Can't say for Islam, but Judaism hardly claims to have the whole
  program for anyone except Jews.  Aside from the seven Noachide
  requirements there are no restrictions on Gentiles, and obviously
  the historical thread is only the Jewish one.  Judaism makes no
  claim one way or another about separate revelations to other
  peoples.

  This misunderstanding may arise out of projecting Xtian
  characteristics onto Judaism, perhaps from a belief that the
  two are more closely related than they actually are.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. (Paul Harvey thread)
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:38:19 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fXLybC2@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.153904.10032@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>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!
>>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!
> 
> A'ight. It pains me to have to resort to such measures and I assure you
> that this hurts me far more than it can ever hurt you, but it seems you
> leave me with no choice and I'm sure you can understand how that
> situation just is not tolerable. And so, as further proof of my
> possession of free will, my individuation, my uniqueness, my assertion
> that I am not a number but a free man, it's time to go transcendent.
>
> BANG!!!    Free will is a metaphor.
> 
> The existance or non-existance of a metaphor is a pointless argument,
> much like the argument over the existance/non-existance of God, another
> metaphor.

We're arguing over whether or not free will is a metaphor that actually
coresponds to anything experiential, or if it's a metaphor with
no actual referent, i.e. pure fantasy. 
 
> And so I say that I have free will and you say that you do not. This
> means nothing. Free will is a metaphor, the beauty is in the eye (I) of
> the beholder.

I suspect that all 5 or 6 of us arguing about this each have different
understandings of what is meant by "free will." I have the sneaking
suspicion we're arguing past each other.

> Webster's II:
> free will: n. [Transl. of LLat. liberum arbitrium] 1. The ability or
> discretion to choose freely. 2. The power, attributed esp. to human
> beings, of making free choices unconstrained by external circumstances
> or necessity.

A nice definition (2)...but somewhat meaningless, really, unless you define
what is "external" and what isn't. If I am overcome with fear and run
from a fight, is that an external or internal circumstance? I don't
think there's a clear boundary here. On the whole, though, I find fewer
difficulties with that definition than with others I've seen.

To be honest, I think we can come up with a definition of free will that
I would agree with. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Rather than blowing up the world, Mallarme decided to put it in brackets.
- Sartre
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<C0IK8B.36L@rice.edu>
Date: 8 Jan 1993 08:40:55 UTC

In article <C0IK8B.36L@rice.edu> 
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article <fXE0AtT@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>[regarding Idolatry in all it's glorious forms:]
>>Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
>>Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
>>battle. 
>  And we all know how well that worked, don't we.
>(For those who don't remember, the Phillistines captured it.)

Yes, but no body should freak out now, because it's safe and sound in a
secret location in Ethiopia. Yes, that's right, and one more thing, only
ska beat and dreadlocks in heaven, natty dreadlock if jah know what I
mean.

=====
Planning a vacation? Jah-Guides! We get you true the valley, yet fear no 
evil! Ask about our weekly special: Cut cane, and drink champagne. Plus,
exclusive limited ski packages on Blue Mountain. Free travel tip: Don't
even t'ink of driving up a down road mon.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean's delusional nature 
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:43:54 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan8.022736.24911@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.135300.9967@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <root.726423512@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>>>In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> 
>>>>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.
>>
>>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*
>>
>>As Stephane Mallarme (aka God) put it: a throw of the dice will never abolish
>>Chance. All thought emits a throw of the dice. 
> 
> Precisely. Steve, and most other people (I would hazard) who believe in the
> concept of moral agency, require the concept of `free will': at least a
> `limited free will'.
> 
> The fact remains (as it always does for Sean (much as he might protest)
> and any non-schizophrenic) that we all act as if we have free will, and
> in the end isn't that all that matters?

In fact, you might say many of us have no choice but to act as if we have
free will. :)

I don't want to deny intentionality. But to say that _choice_ is
a conscious act is just inaccurate.  Decisions _just happen_. 
Otherwise, you'd have to decide to decide, and decide to make that
decision, and that one, ad infinitum.  
 
I say: we are neither free nor determined. We just are. Our thoughts arise,
we don't know where from. Our intentions emerge, but why, we don't know.

Also, I don't think everybody acts as if they have free will. To say that
is to say that everyone is deluded, because belief in free will is a
delusion. I don't intend that in a pejorative way. 

> Dano

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

A little test: compose a truly beautiful poem  within the
next 10 seconds.  Can't do it? Heck, exercise your free will and do it!
Still can't? You mean you have to wait until it _comes_ to you? 

All thoughts, intentions etc. arise in the same way. They just come to
us or they don't. "I didn't think of it" is a good excuse! Can you help
it if you didn't think of something? No -- you just didn't. 

Free will is a myth. A socially necessary one, perhaps, but still a myth.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:42:22 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fXL3X08@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1inem1INNdbp@hp-col.col.hp.com> 
> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> 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.
>>Is it a matter of free will to accept or deny this delusion?  ;-) 
> 
> YES!

Could you explain what you mean by this? I sort of feel like I want to 
agree with you, but I need to know more about what you mean.

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

NOTHING WILL HAVE TAKEN PLACE...
BUT THE PLACE.
EXCEPT, PERHAPS...
A CONSTELLATION.

- Mallarme
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 1/2/93   God's Promise in John 12:26
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:07:52 GMT

In article <C07LJz.Gr8@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
}
}	If any man serve me,
}	let him follow me;

And once you catch him, and with the right Bar-B-Que sauce...

pun on the "How to serve man" SF book...


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:56:10 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1993Jan7.010941.6898@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: 
>: >From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
>: >supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
>: >also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
>: >would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
>: >Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.
>: 
>: I am the way.  Not "I am a way."  I am THE way.  Moreso, "I am the way,
>: the truth and the life.  No man cometh to the Father but by me."  They
>: did NOT write: "I am a way, one of many truths and a type of life.  Some
>: men come to the Father by me, but not all."
>
>See Amanda's posting - and the other one on the question of when the passage
>was added to the Bible.
>
>I am not going to repeat myself. Reread what I wrote above. Then go back
>to the Bible, and read the statement in context. Then try to find a place
>where the statement is "I am the only way".
>
>Your statement is simple obfuscation - it does not address my point - it
>simply ignores it.
>
>You probably bitch about some Christians taking the Bible literally - as
>well as out of context. I suggest that you should not do the same.
>
>Bill

Bill,
   the above was *not* obfuscation. Arguing about what was actually said
by Jeshua ben Joseph is trivial (or at least moot). The majority of xians,
at least in the West, ->accept<- that "I am the only way" line, and we have
to deal, in the real world, with real people, and with what the vast majority
of self-proclaimed xians *say* is their religion. Sure, I've know a few folks
who attempted to follow what may have been the actual ideas of that Palestinian
guy, but that compares to *EVERYBODY ELSE*. If you like, consider it an un-
acknowledged split, between the *real* xians and the everyday xians. Fine.
Then, when you read the posts of those of us that want to "xian-bash", do
a global search&replace g/xian/s//sunday-xian/, o.k.?

	mark (who, if he has his feet firmly planted in mid-air, must
		have his ass planted equally firmly on something solid)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:29:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.175859.29077@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.141526.17765@pdn.paradyne.com> nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
>
>>Our society was founded on Christian values but has progressively
>>moved away from them.
>
>I suppose slavery is a Christian value? Please present your evidence
>that "our society was founded on Christian values". Here's some 
>evidence to the contrary:
>

[list of quotes deleted]

awesome! thanks so much!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.19
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:35:07 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>
>	The blowing of these different conchshells became uproarious.
>Vibrating both in the sky and on the earth, it shattered the hearts of
>the sons of Dhrtarastra.

Hello?  Hell-O, McFly, anybody home in there?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan11.183333.29688@cs.tulane.edu>, goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes...

>Hey, guys! You will never know God like this. There is no formula that
>when expanded reveals God. If you really and truly want to know God.
>I mean you really want to know God with all your heart. Then you will
>have to humble yourself and pray, asking Him to forgive you, ask
>Jesus to come into your heart. Sounds simple. Too simple perhaps?

Pretty simple.  I'll put it in different terms.  "To know God, one has to 
first believe that he exists and act accordingly."  Not very convincing...

>God loves everybody, even the feeble-minded and uneducated so He
>made the path to salvation so very simple, why do we try to complicate
>things? Because we are proud and we are self-centered. 

Actually, god messed it all up because god ostensibly made us proud and
self-centered.  In other words, he wound us up as our little spin-toys, pointed
us in the wrong direction, and then got upset when we didn't turn around and
give him a big smooch. 

>Stop this foolishness and quit psueudo-intellectualizing! God loves
>you and wants you to get right. 

How is this pseudo-intellectualizing?  I could easily mirror that back to you.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ISLAM REVEALED #2 - The Origin of Allah
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:47:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan11.184721.16758@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>
>THE ORIGIN OF ALLAH
> 
>_Encyclopedia of Religion_, ed. James Hastings, I:117
>  "`Allah' is the pre-Islamic name...corresponding to the Babylonian Bel."

As an atheist, I am no friend of Islam.  However, your crusade of
distortions and half-truths against Islam is getting tiring.
Of course, you are consistent with the long-standing tradition of xtian
salesmanship in which other belief systems are presented in 
a distorted fashion, beginning with Paul's distortions of Judaism.

When non-xtians use selected quotations from the bible or from
xtian leaders to highlight some of the more horrific aspects
of xtianity, there follows the usual litany of apologists
crying, "you've taken quotations out of context" or
"that part isn't literally true".

I can only respect the faith of someone who applies the same
critical thinking to their own beliefs that he/she applies
to other beliefs.

(remainder of anti-Islam snippets, deleted)
-- 
---  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: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:53 GMT

	This article is aptly named, because there is no possible way of  
successfully arguing against it.  For the presenter has not only given you  
a set of statements, but has automatically disqualified any possible  
opposing response.

	At that point, it doesn't matter if the set of statements are true  
or not; one might as well be arguing:
a) False things are true.
b) If you don't think false things are true, it is because you are a dork.

	Of course, this is only my imperfect, (pride-filled?) human logic  
at work here.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
and haughtness.
	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/12/93   God's Promise in Romans 16:20
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	And the God of peace
	shall bruise Satan under your feet
	shortly.
	The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
	be with you.
	Amen.

	Romans 16:20
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WHEN does human life BEGIN?
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1icth2INNiol@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes...
> 
>[lengthy quotes omitted--go back to #66273 if you'd like to read
>them]

	Numbers are meaningless to reference a post when you are 
sending a message to the "outside." Each system or node has a 
different numbering.

> 
>Throughout the Bible, the beginning of life is associated with the
>first breath. Likewise, the end of life is associated with
>the last breath. Simple. If that doesn't fit people's theology or
>denominational dogma, oh well.

	Well, how does Jeremiah 20:17 fit into the above dogma?

	``because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would 
have been my grave...'

[...]

> 
>The bottom line is that the government has NO right to legislate to women
>what they can do with their bodies. And the vicious "rescue" groups that

	You mean that they are making the choice to abort their own 
bodies?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:43:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.183413.15280@ra.royalroads.ca>  
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> 
> Create only those who would choose Him?  That's what the angels are,
> more or less, servants created to do His will unquestioningly.
> The angels were given one chance to choose and a third of them
> followed Satan.
	So Satan had free will?  Hmm, if this IS the case, then that means  
the most powerful creature with free will ever created chose to reject  
God.  Interesting model.  If not, well, then God created Satan to be evil.   
Either way, God allows Satan to exist.  Why, pray tell, does this need to  
happen if we _really_ have free will, and don't just fall under Satan's  
spell?  (Or something like that...)

[I'll deal with the 'prepackaging' bit in a later article.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
and haughtness.
	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc