HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nik@infonode.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: n_simpson@infonode.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.180030.20577@infonode.ingr.com>, jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.140539.1428@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
> |> 	Ok,  I can accept that the Bible has some accurate historical 
> |> information,  just as The Illiad has accurate historical information,
> |> that doesn't mean that everything its says is true,  particularly when
> |> it strays from presenting verifiable historical facts. 
> 
> It sounds like you tend toward the point of view that holds "if it can't
> be proved, then it must not be true".  By definition that is difficult
> to argue against, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
> 
	Not at all, my attitude is open minded,  I neither accept or deny
the possibility that it is true until evidence is available.  The Bible may
well be the direct word of God,  nothing I've seen in my 31 years has 
gone anyway towards convincing me. Only a fool either accepts/denies the
truth of something without evidence,  to so do is is an act of faith only.

> For example, if Mike Tyson came up to me looking like he wanted to beat
> someone to a pulp, and said "I'm smarter than you, right?"  I would be
> loath to disagree with him, but that doesn't make him right (or wrong).
> 

	I daresay my public expression of views about the accuracy of the 
Bible might be different if I were being threatened,  other than that 
obvious point this seems a pretty specious arguement.

> |> >Much, if not most, of what the Bible presents as "current events" has
> |> >been verified by archeology.  True the Bible goes into finer detail than
> |> >archeology could ever manage.
> |> 
> |> 	Or elaborates on the truth !
> 
> Again, it sounds like you want to discard everything that can't be
> verified.
> 
	If you accept that parts of the Bible are innaccurate as your statement
indicates then how do reconcile this, did the God pick someone with a hearing
impediment ;-)

> |> 	As you may have guessed by I'm extremely sceptical about miracles,
> |> I don't accept the premise that a Miracle can occur.
> 
> Oh well, given that premise I guess everything I might describe as a 
> miracle you would describe as either "something I can't explain" or
> "an exaggeration".

	Very probably.
> 
> -- 
> James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
> DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
> (205) 730-8874               |


Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: What is a fundie?
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:43:09 GMT

Several days ago, someone wrote to the effect:

"He is a fundie, and I don't believe him."  Anyway, that is the gist of
what I remember.  I wish I had the article.

So, my questions are:

What is a fundie (= fundamentalist)?  If being a fundie is bad, how do I
keep from being a fundie?

Are all TV evangelists fundies?

Are fundies always jumping up and down, and shouting at others?

Some people get really excited about certain things, and their actions
are extreme.  Two examples: a fan at a football game, and a Christian.
Both, in the heat of a moment, may do things that others (who are
uninvolved at the time) think are quite pecuilar.

 - Les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: nik@ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:12:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.214129.13507@b11.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.184112.610@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
> |> In article <1992Apr13.191205.3634@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
> |> >In article <4412.29E45CCC@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> |> >|> Les Bartel says:
> |> >|> >Many scholars accept the Bible as an accurate and trustworthy source of
> |> >|> >history.
> |> >|>  
> |> >|> I'm not really arguing about the Bible's worth as a journal of events at
> |> >|> the time. But being historically accurate does not make it any more
> |> >|> inspired by God than a 20th Century political science textbook will be
> |> >|> 300 years from now.
> |> >
> |> >It's historical accuracy adds credibility to its other contents.  I 
> |> 
> |> 	No it doesn't,  there are many writing from ancient history which
> |> have passages and sections that correspond to archeological evidence, those
> |> books are also full of the most obvious hogwash.  Its not the historical
> |> parts of the Bible that are the problem.
> 
> No flame intended...

	I'm unsinged :-)
> 
> I said ADD credibility, not give it COMPLETE credibility.  I don't say
> this to make me sound wishy washy, but to satisfy those who insist
> that some portions of the Bible lack any credibility.  What I'm saying
> here, is if your friend Alex has proven himself to be very trustworthy
> in the things he has told you, then you would tend to believe him if
> he said something of which you knew nothing and could not verify.  You
> might not have complete faith in what he said, but at least some.

	That depends on what he says,  if he comes to me and says "The little
people at the end of garden have told him the moon is made of green cheese"
I would feel entitled to view that claim with a great deal of scepticism
even if in the past he'd been extremely reliable. This is the problem I
have with the idea that the Bible is an accurate chronicle of events, parts
of it are credible even documented in other sources and by archeological
evidence,  other parts are so wacky I wonder if the writer was several 
sandwiches short of a picnic.

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.164444.13814@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com writes:
>In article <4373.29E152E1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
>|> Which blatant miracles are we talking about? I don't count the Bible,
>|> because I hardly view it as an objective source for facts :) Sort of
>|> like reading Pravda in the Good Ol' Days about the Cold War.
>
>Whoa there!  Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
>regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify today),
>you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for facts that
>can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?  What does
>it say about historical events?

	What it says about human nature is not facts, its opinion,  there is
a difference,  many things we do now would have been "miraculous" to the
writers of the bible.

>
>If the Bible (or any other source) is inaccurate about things you can
>verify, then it should not be consulted for things you cannot verify.

	Since it was written so long ago,  *anything* it says is not 
verfiable in any sense that stands up to scientific scrutiny. Whether
that means what it says should or should not be considered as important 
is not something I want to get into ;-)


>If the claims that can be verified are verified, then the claims that

	Just how do you propose to *verify* things written by/witnessed
by people who've been dead for several thousand years ?,  I certainly wouldn't
want to convict anyone on it.

>cannot be verified are worth considering.  (Again, look at what a jury
>does in a court trial.)
>
>|> I think we should probably take steps to define a miracle
>|> sometime.
>
>For starters how about: "an event that does not occur naturally and
>cannot be genuinely reproduced by man but which most people would
>recognize as the product of supernatural abilities".
>
	Just because we can't currently come up with a *natural* explanation
for some phenomena does not mean that one does not exist.  The history of 
man is in part the search for explanations for what was previously 
considered miraculous.


-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Miracle Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:12:49 GMT

In article <4419.29E4DA92@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> I don't know about MEANINGFUL, but my definition is not very USEFUL :)
|> It's silly to try and argue about something that God does to violate
|> natural laws when only God knows all the natural laws.

Then let's abandon this argument :-).

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: deaverpf@infonode.ingr.com (Paul F. Deaver)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:07:02 GMT

Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> 
>I believe it was a pagan group that picked Christmas on Dec. 25th, and
>may even be responsible for Santa Claus. I sure can't find him in the
>Bible :)

Santa, as we know him, was defined by the CocaCola Company.  

--
Paul
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 18:25:00 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>I'm sure that the Family Bookstore at Madison Square will either have
>it in stock or be able to order it.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of checking it out from the library
:) I don't have sufficient cash flow to be able to give some to Josh
McDowell :)
 
>The Baptist Bookstore on Governor's
>should also, but you might prefer not to be seen there :-) :-) :-).
 
It's not so bad, if I hyperventilate in the parking lot and hold my
breath inside :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:57:43 GMT

In article <4385.29E26794@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> James Reed says:
|> >Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
|> >regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify
|> >today), you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for
|> >facts that can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?
|>  
|> Lessee.... it says that mankind is basically a pack of sinners. Beyond
|> that, I'm at a loss :) I've read the thing, but it's been years..

A slightly more accurate but equally brief paraphrase is "each person has
fallen short of God's standards."

|> >What does it say about historical events?
|>  
|> What kind of historical events do you mean? Many events that are
|> historical now were common back then.

That's my point, but let me rephrase it for clarity.  When the Bible
presents something as common practice or contemporary events or gives
a sequence of contemporary events, is it supported or contradicted by
other sources (other ancient writings and/or archeology (sp?)).

|> But aren't we trying to use the Bible in this case to prove
|> God's existence? ....

No.  As you correctly point out, the Bible assumes God.  It also
claims to be revealed to men by God and as such is useful for
learning about God.

I'm not trying to prove God's existence either.  I'm trying to explain
my beliefs and show that they are at least as plausible as any
alternative.  I don't think it possible to "prove" or "disprove" the
existence of God in this life.  But I do believe we will all confront
(or really be confronted by) Him after we die.

|> [ attempt at a tentative definition of "miracle" ]
|>
|> Everything I can think of that would fall into those first two
|> categories above could be explained away by something other than God -
|> either we don't know enough about how the universe works or we're being
|> played with by aliens with a much higher science than ours. The
|> explanations might seem improbable, but they're enough for "reasonable
|> doubt." (No, I haven't forgotten the jury :) )

OK then, YOU try to define miracle :-).

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:54:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.181122.12255@infonode.ingr.com>, nik@infonode.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> 	Not at all, my attitude is open minded,  I neither accept or deny
|> the possibility that it is true until evidence is available.  The Bible may
|> well be the direct word of God,  nothing I've seen in my 31 years has 
|> gone anyway towards convincing me. Only a fool either accepts/denies the
|> truth of something without evidence,  to so do is is an act of faith only.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Christian Walters.  What sort
of evidence would convince you?  Later in your posting you kind of
discounted the possibility of a miracle.  If a miracle wouldn't
convince you, what would?

|> > |> >Much, if not most, of what the Bible presents as "current events" has
|> > |> >been verified by archeology.  True the Bible goes into finer detail than
|> > |> >archeology could ever manage.
|> > |> 
|> > |> 	Or elaborates on the truth !
|> > 
|> > Again, it sounds like you want to discard everything that can't be
|> > verified.
|> > 
|> 	If you accept that parts of the Bible are innaccurate as your statement
|> indicates then how do reconcile this, did the God pick someone with a hearing
|> impediment ;-)

I don't think my statement indicates parts of the Bible are inaccurate.
I said the Bible goes into finer detail than archeology is capable of.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Corp., Huntsville AL
Distribution: hsv
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:58:49 GMT

Lawrence Hughes writes:

>BTW - one thing I've been wondering about - your bible (or at least the Old
>Testament) makes it pretty clear that the Jews are the chosen people of your
>God (and they will certainly confirm this, if asked) - what makes you non-
>Jewish folk (which comprises the vast majority of christians) think that
>Jehova is at all interested in YOUR welfare? Is that why you continually
>try to supplant your god Jehova with one of your other gods, Jesus? Who
>was, I might be so indiscreet to point out, a Jew. I still wonder how our
>culture (or at least the christian subset of it) can consider the Semitic
>culture to be the precursor of ours? Not that I have anything against them,
>but we (the majority of Americans) are descended from considerably different
>stock. Judeo-christian religion is at least as alien (and inappropriate, in
>my opinion) to our culture as Voodoo, Hinduism, or Zen Buddhism. [NOTE TO
>ZIONISTS: please do not construe this message as anti-semitic in any way!]

The apostle Paul was "set apart for the gospel of God ... to call people
from among the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans
1:1-5).  Ever read chapters 9-11 of Romans?  Verses 11 and 12 of Chapter 10
(NIV) sum it up very nicely (and quote some "Old Testament" as well):

As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to 
shame."  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same
Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Miracle Bashing
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 18:21:13 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>Sorry to intrude on your reply to Jim, but...
 
No problem. Jim and I need little interruptions now and then to keep
from overtly assaulting each other's character too much :)
 
>Are you saying that everything can be explained by natural law?
 
I don't know. We'd have to know all the natural laws to find out :)
 
>I thought
>you also said that if something could be explained by a (known or as
>yet undiscovered) natural law then it didn't qualify for miracle
>status.
 
Of course. If something occurs in nature, would it be a miracle? And if
it can be considered a miracle if all it's doing is conforming to
natural law, then doesn't EVERYTHING become a miracle? And if so,
doesn't that make any definition of miracle ultimately pointless?
 
>I looks to me like you're taking a position that makes it impossible to
>define miracle in any meaningful way (whether you believe miracles
>happen or not).
 
I don't know about MEANINGFUL, but my definition is not very USEFUL :)
It's silly to try and argue about something that God does to violate
natural laws when only God knows all the natural laws.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Wed,  8 Apr 92 14:49:01 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>A slightly more accurate but equally brief paraphrase is "each person
>has fallen short of God's standards."
 
Ah, we've struck another one of my snags with Christianity. This notion
that all humans are going to sin. If we've fallen short of God's
standards simply on the basis of being born human, then either God made
substandard parts or he allowed defects to creep in. The position that
we're all supposed to apologize or atone for these "God guaranteed sins"
strikes me as odd, to say the least.
 
>When the Bible
>presents something as common practice or contemporary events or gives
>a sequence of contemporary events, is it supported or contradicted by
>other sources (other ancient writings and/or archeology (sp?)).
 
But at best doesn't that only prove that the Bible was written a long
time ago? Surely a book which contains history that we find to be
accurate, or at least supportable, does not qualify it as being the Word
of God.
 
>> But aren't we trying to use the Bible in this case to prove
>> God's existence? ....
 
>No.  As you correctly point out, the Bible assumes God.  It also
>claims to be revealed to men by God and as such is useful for
>learning about God.
 
Exactly. And I'm trying to point out that there's no reason to believe
this claim, and I'm failing miserably :)
 
>I'm not trying to prove God's existence either.  I'm trying to explain
>my beliefs and show that they are at least as plausible as any
>alternative.
 
I don't know if you're beliefs are the most likely, but given an
infinite number of possibilities, anything is equally plausible :)
 
>I don't think it possible to "prove" or "disprove" the
>existence of God in this life.  But I do believe we will all confront
>(or really be confronted by) Him after we die.
 
One way to find out, and I'm not that curious yet :)
 
>OK then, YOU try to define miracle :-).
 
Chicken :)
 
My definition of miracle is quite useless for any debate. It's simple:
an event occuring by design outside of the laws of nature. The only
problem is, we don't know everything about nature, so we don't know if
something is a miracle when it happens or not. We know that many things
chalked up to miracles in the past were nothing but natural phenomena -
eclipses and comets and things. But when something happens that we don't
understand now, the best we can do is say "that event does not conform
to any known theories or laws of nature." (Although you might not want
to say it like that, lest you sound like a butthead.)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:45:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.143355.20698@b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
|> BUZZZZZ! Wrong. The writing of Confucius are older, more accurate to the
|> orginal, and much better documented.

I was unaware of that.  How old are they?  How much time elapsed between the
original and the oldest surviving copies?  I honestly didn't realize that
Confucius lived over 3000 years ago.

|> In fact, there is a clear and indisputable
|> geneology from Confucius himself (actually from many generations before) down
|> to current living members of his line.

How is it that there's an indisputable geneology from Confucius (over 3000 years)
when current day geneologists are doing quite well to achieve 300 years (even
with some questionable data)?

|> BTW - one thing I've been wondering about - your bible (or at least the Old
|> Testament) makes it pretty clear that the Jews are the chosen people of your
|> God (and they will certainly confirm this, if asked) - what makes you non-
|> Jewish folk (which comprises the vast majority of christians) think that
|> Jehova is at all interested in YOUR welfare?

The Old Testament Jews were God's chosen people.  (I'll beg the question
on what that means for Jews today :-)  God's intent and instructions for
them was that they were to be an example to the nations of the world
(similar to His instructions to Christians today).  They got self-righteous
about it (similar to the reactions of many Christians today).  When Jesus
came, they failed to recognize Him as the Messiah they were expecting
(they were expecting the wrong thing).  Since Jesus was rejected by
the chosen people, that opened the door (so to speak) for the rest of us.

|> Is that why you continually
|> try to supplant your god Jehova with one of your other gods, Jesus?

There's no supplanting going on.  I don't quite know how to explain it,
but Jesus and Jehovah (God the Father) and the Holy Spirit are one and
the same.  Yet they are also distinct in how they relate to mankind.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |