HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:14:50 GMT

Lawrence Hughes writes:
|> Les Bartel writes:
|> > What is a fundie (= fundamentalist)?  

Webster says:

fundamentalism: n, a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the
literal infallibility of the Scriptures - fundamentalist: adj or n

A key word here is literal.  A 'moderate' does not necessarily believe
that all Scripture is to be taken literally, but is otherwise the same.
At least a Baptist moderate.

|> Someone who unquestionly accepts ideas and beliefs from others or from books
|> with critical examination, study of alternatives, and even glorifies this
|> unreasoning acceptance with the name "faith".
|> 
|> > If being a fundie is bad ...
|> 
|> It is. Terrible. An abrogation of your basic responsibility to think and
|> use reason - the two highest achievements of the human species.
|> 
|> > ... how do I keep from being a fundie?
|> 
|> Start by using your brain - examine things with reason. Don't accept things
|> told you by others without question, especially if they don't seem to relate
|> to everything else around you, or the way you really feel inside.
|> 
|> > Are all TV evangelists fundies?
|> 
|> Yes. Among the worst. ...

I don't see how you can prove that.  They have studied the Bible, and
some of them truly do believe what it has to say.  Of course, there is
always some element of faith in their beliefs as well.  Do you believe
that Washington was our first president?  You read/heard about it from
somewhere, and believed it (I'm sure).  How do know this wasn't some
sort of marvelous fabrication?  You weren't there in his lifetime.

... Actually, many are simply out for big bucks, and don't
|> really swallow all the crap they espouse, but they sure want YOU to.

Unfortunately a few bad apples seem to have spoiled our perception of
the whole batch.

|> > Are fundies always jumping up and down, and shouting at others?
|> 
|> No, sometimes they fake the ability to cure illness by laying on of hands, bilk
|> elderly ladies out of their life's savings, and do other unsavory things.

I have difficulty believing they are able to cure illnesses too.  And, yes,
there are some unsavory ones too.

|> Larry "that clarify it for you?" Hughes

It clarifies your personal definition which seems a bit extreme to me.
Well, at least very different from the dictionary definition, which is
what I had in mind when I wrote the article.

 - Les
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 09:43:07 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

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.
 
>The book _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_ by Josh McDowell is an
>excellent source for this kind of information.  Mr. (Dr.?) McDowell is
>a scientist who began his work in an attempt to discredit the Bible.
>After his research, he became convinced that the Bible is in fact the
>Word of God (note his bias) and is completely accurate and reliable.
>There are a number of other cases where an individual searching for the
>truth (with a bias) had to change his/her premise because of the
>overwhelming evidence.
 
Josh McDowell came to Auburn two or three years ago speaking on this
very topic and peddling that book of his. Although he managed to endear
himself with the crowd that already believed the Bible, to me he was
singularly unconvincing and I left the coliseum feeling a deeper
bitterness about religion than I had since a friend was killed in a car
wreck.
 
>Another fact that McDowell brings up is that the Bible was written
>within a couple hundred years of when the events occurred, and often
>sooner.
 
And this was one of the most singulalry unconvincing points he brought
up. I think that something written that long after the fact was damned
lucky to be as historically accurate as it is. But as for everything
else... hmmm... let's just say I would have been more convinced if there
had been someone taking notes at the time that scribbling it all down
four score years later.
 
>McDowell has numerous references to other works which support his
>findings. The book that I mentioned is written in outline form, making
>it more suitable for research.
 
The first chance I get, I will look at his book. It would be unfair of
me to discredit him because he is unconvincing in person. :)
 



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.161450.6588@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>
>Webster says:
>
>fundamentalism: n, a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the
>literal infallibility of the Scriptures - fundamentalist: adj or n
>
>A key word here is literal.  A 'moderate' does not necessarily believe
>that all Scripture is to be taken literally, but is otherwise the same.
>At least a Baptist moderate.
>
>|> Someone who unquestionly accepts ideas and beliefs from others or from books
>|> with critical examination, study of alternatives, and even glorifies this
>|> unreasoning acceptance with the name "faith".
>|> 
>|> > Are all TV evangelists fundies?
>|> 
>|> Yes. Among the worst. ...
>
>I don't see how you can prove that.  They have studied the Bible, and
>some of them truly do believe what it has to say.  Of course, there is
>always some element of faith in their beliefs as well.  Do you believe
>that Washington was our first president?  You read/heard about it from
>somewhere, and believed it (I'm sure).  How do know this wasn't some
>sort of marvelous fabrication?  You weren't there in his lifetime.
>
>
>It clarifies your personal definition which seems a bit extreme to me.
>Well, at least very different from the dictionary definition, which is
>what I had in mind when I wrote the article.
>
 Not all Baptists are fundies, some moslims are fundies.

 Fundies believe (in the pro-active) sense in the absolute pre-eminence
 of Biblical Interpration. Many TV evangalests take a fundie route, since
 it's easier to overwhelminly convince the gullible fundie that he and
 he alone is on the way to salvation.

 The art of TV fundie preaching got it's start in the tent revial meetings
 that cover the south in the summer and fall months.

 The real question becomes Why is Fundie so popular? I belive that in
 large doses Fundamentalism becomes a narcotic to the masses. Fundies
 believe that they are on God's side and He will defend them from the
 evil world. That a relationship with God can be bought and doesn't
 require any real involvment by the individual.

 Most fundie groups will accept only a few of the books of the New Testament
 and isolated quotes from the Old Testament. They have  a fear of reading
 a context into a scripture. Most of fundies primary motivations is not
 love of God but fear. Fear is the primary motivation of a fundie's life.
 Fear of What? You Name it, they've Got it.





-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: presto!random@uunet.uu.net
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:19:21 CST
Organization: I'm Just Me.

In article <4463.29E9A217@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian Walters writes:

> Also, I don't know a lot about sonics, but wouldn't they tend to shatter
> a stone wall, instead of knocking them down "quite flat"?
>  

A sonic force on stone wall would pulverize it.  

--
"If winning is not              // Jeff Hyche           
 important, then            \\ //  UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!random
 why keep score?" Lt. Worf   \X/   GEnie: J.HYCHE
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: re: That sin thing
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:44:41 GMT

In article <4486.29EBD486@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
(stuff deleted)
|> Part of it may be the word "infinite." Christians typically view God as
|> a being that encompasses all things except evil. Well, if you say that
|> God will do no evil, then you are placing a parameter on an infinite
|> being, thus rendering him finite.

Oops, you forgot to be "logical" here.  Please explain why something that
is bounded by parameters cannot be considered "infinite".  I am sure you recognize
that an infinite number of points can be found in a finite area.  To demonstrate this
fact, draw a circle on a piece of paper and count how many points it contains.  
Remember plane geometry from the seventh grade?  :-)

A perfect being can posses infinite capabilities and still be constrained from
doing certain things.  You seem to be asking the old "Can God make a rock so big
that he cannot lift it?" question.  For answers to questions like this, I would suggest
that you just ask Him.  :-)

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       |  Just My Own Bigoted Opinion  |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 09:46:57 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jeff Hyche says:
>Basicly the heart of the debate is does god exist or not.  I say
>he doesn't, simply because there is now sientific evidence to
>support him.  I see no reason to be superstitious about anything.
>If you can't prove it, then is doens't exist.  You can't prove
>god so he doesn't exist.
 
Ack! Logical fallacy. Lack of reason to believe the contrary is no
reason to believe anything.
 
>Not many people know the real difference.  Agnostics don't care if
>there is a god or not.  Atheist just say there is not and be done
>with it.
 
Actually, many of us agnotsic types do care if there is a God. We just
admit we don't know.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Wed,  8 Apr 92 14:47:18 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>> I'm not completely
>> enamored of a social program for several reasons: by whose criteria
>> should we pick which parents need help, for example.
 
>Yes, this is one of my objections to increasing government involvement
>in _anything_.  We already have major problems with conflict between
>bureacratic social welfare institutions and parents.   Bureaucratic
>organizations have a specific mission that does not necessarily
>complement the goals of all parents.
 
>[Example of bureaucratic nasties deleted.]
 
>How about using the government to promote parental responsibilities.
>I don't mean interference.  I am thinking about things like spreading
>information and ideas, sponsoring grass roots community groups,
>dispensing propaganda, etc?
 
THis might be better than some huge impersonal nanny-funding program,
but I'm not sure it would work, either. I don't have any stats to back
me up on this one, but I have a feeling that much teenage delinquency
isn't caused by concerned parents who are looking for but cannot find
help in raising the kid. I bet lots of it is caused by parents who don't
care enough to try to be a good parent or are unaware that they're being
a bad parent. (A child abuser, for example, who doesn't think he has a
problem.) These kids are the outcasts that I'm worried about. How are
you going to get a drug lord to go pick up a pamphlet on how to be
sensitive to your infants needs?
 
>I suspect that any measures we attempt after the damage is done will
>prove to be less effective.  I agree that something constructive could
>be done here, but have to admit that I have no original or innovative
>ideas about what to do.  Perhaps we will just have to learn to be more
>tolerant. :-)
 
God forbid :) To be fair to parents, I think I'm in danger of being too
sweeping when I blame the problems of the kids on them exclusively.
There's nothing that says an abused child MUST eventually become a
criminal, or that the son of a drug lord must follow in his parents
footsteps. We could probably stem some of the crime by giving kids
something else to do. But like I said, I don't know much about politics
or fiscal policy and so on. And I'm still stumped about how to stop
teenage pregnancy.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition (was Re: Christian Bashing)
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 09:45:02 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>I would further qualify a miracle as a phenomenon with an unknown
>or as-yet unexplained cause.  Miracles are extraordinary.  We think
>we understand the how-and-why of things we see happening every
>day.  So when something unexpected or inexplicable happens, we say
>"Wow!  It's a miracle!"  :-)
 
I'm assuming here that you are using the royal "we." :) *I* don't do
that. I wait for Dan Rather or Carl Sagan to explain it :)
 
>However, I also consider many seemingly commonplace things to
>be somewhat miraculous as well.  The birth of a child, for example.
 
People have said this one before. Interesting. Biologically, a
childbirth is no more miraculous than a bush budding. And when you hear
the screams of a woman in labor as she leaves inch-deep fingerprints in
a steel bedrail, I bet "It's a mircale!" ain't the first thing in your
mind :) Something like "Good lord, give her some morphine before she
shatters my glasses!" :)
 
>Miracles in history seem to have had a tendency to get changed in the
>telling over time.  This does not mean that there were no miracles,
>but only that people are fanciful story-tellers.
 
What it means is that we have no way of knowing what happened, and that
appeals to miracles of 2000 years ago are worthless.
 
>>Why is a "show-stopper" more of a miracle than something mundane?
 
>No logical reason that I can put my finger on.  Some of these things
>just seem to be more impressive to me.
 
I am held in thrall by your deductive reasoning ability :)
 
Are you saying that miracles are a subjective thing? So you can say
"Zounds! Look at that!" to your companion, and he can say "So what? It's
only an air-to-ground lightning strike emanating from a nearby
cumulonimbus cloud." Have you seen a miracle, or his he an insensitive,
cynical dunderhead?
 
Or if he says "That's amazing!" and you look and say "What's so amazing
about a hummingbird feeding out of a sunflower?" Who's the cynical
dunderhead now?
 
>I think you probably understand this argument from an intuitive
>perspective.
 
Don't bet the rent money on that one :)
 
>I suppose this is less than satisfying to the "Spock" aspect of your
>character, but there it is.  :-)
 
My Spock side is quite used to being frustrated during religious
debates, thank you :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:58:11 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Les Bartel says:
>But a Christian _should not_ (and should is a key word) try to
>manipulate the audience into believing something.  Part of my
>Christianity is honesty and straight-forwardness.  He/She should just
>state the facts and present conclusions.
 
But isn't a sermon simply a way of bending people to your own point of
view? (i.e. that you should accept God) Nothing I ever heard at a church
was presented as opinion, and they never pointed out sources that
disagree with the conclusions.
 
I can't speak for all churches, but the one I used to go to had a pastor
that would bend any sermon (and every sermon) to a plea for money. He
was very subtle about it, but it was there.
 
>My source says that the archeological digings show that the walls fell
>down in an unnatural way.  They were knocked down quite flat, so the
>city could be easily invaded.
 
How many "natural" ways are there for an army to knock a wall down? :)
Not many armies in history have been patient enough to let erosion do
the work for them.
 
Also, I don't know a lot about sonics, but wouldn't they tend to shatter
a stone wall, instead of knocking them down "quite flat"?
 
>We have been quite civil here.  And this has forced me to (try to)
>support my beliefs.
 
Ditto, even though I am intruding uninvited on this particular one :)
The best thing you can do for your beliefs is try to defend them to a
non-believer. If the beliefs fail, you're better off, but if they stand,
they stand firmer. Also, I've noticed myself that these arguments also
make my agnosticism stronger :)


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: wilsonk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Wilson)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:55:16 GMT

In article <4435.29E6317F@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray) writes:
> KW> PSS: How did a stupid bunny ever get associated with the RESURRECTION
> KW> (sp)?
> 
> I know I said I was leaving, but since this one isn't controversial, I'll 
> answer.  It is because of the Pagans.
> --  
>  * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic

Keith (Alas, Chris and I AGREE on something: my question was rhetorical) Wilson
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:49:58 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Chris Spray says:
>KW> PSS: How did a stupid bunny ever get associated with the
>KW> RESURRECTION (sp)?
 
>I know I said I was leaving, but since this one isn't controversial,
>I'll answer.  It is because of the Pagans.
 
I think you're right on this one, but I think "Pagans" is too broad a
term. Does anyone remember which Olde Tyme Religion started the bunnies
on Easter?
 
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 :)


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jazz@jazz.b11.ingr.com (J. Jeff Roberts)
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Reply-To: jeff@jazz.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:43:38 GMT

In article <gdtRq*RI0@presto.UUCP>, random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) writes:
|> > It's shocking, the number of people who don't know the difference
|> > between atheism and agnosticism. I guess that since much of the time I'm
|> > arguing with believers, I seem atheist by comparison. I've only gone toe
|> > to toe with atheists a couple of times, and it was really odd to find
|> > myself arguing for God :)
|>  
|> Not many people know the real difference.  Agnostics done care if
|> there is a god or not.  Atheist just say there is not and be done
|> with it.

Actually, agnostics simply believe that you can't _know_ whether there's a
God or not.  "Hard" agnostics believe that you can't be sure of anything.
They kinda died out because based on their premise they couldn't be sure they
even had a premise.

-- 
==============================================================================
J. Jeff Roberts              jazz@jazz.b11.ingr.com             (205) 730-6155
   God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.  Ps 46:1
==============================================================================
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 22:33:35 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

James Reed says, using many correctly spelled words :) :
>> On the other hand, it *is* possible to prove God does exist, but it's
>> not likely to happen. To do that, you have to coerce God into
>> performing a blatant miracle, or otherwise prove his existence to the
>> satisfaction of all NON-believers.
 
>God has performed "blatant" miracles in the past.  True, there may not
>be many who witnessed them first-hand, but most people will believe a
>lot that they don't witness first-hand (ask any jury :-).
 
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.
 
>There are some people who would not even be convinced by a "blatant"
>miracle.
 
Yeah, probably, but there are some who view things like rainbows
miraculous. I think we should probably take steps to define a miracle
sometime.
 
>> But, of course, the chances of God doing that are slim, since the big
>> guy/gal places a lot of emphasis on faith.
 
>Slim, perhaps; zero, no.
 
Well, yeah, that's my point. They would be zero if God doesn't exist.
Until something like this happens to prove the existence of God (or
disprove the non-existence of God) many of us can't be sure.
 
>Even if you happen to be one of the fortunate
>ones who witnesses a miracle, that would only be the starting point (or
>perhaps in your case "the straw that broke the camel's back" :-), you
>will still come across situations where faith is required.
 
I didn't know believing in God could be so tedious :) Ha ha, don't mind
me. But seriously, at least if I *had* witnessed something that I
believed was a case of divine intervention, then at least I would have
the faith to use when the situation called for it.
 
>> So, if you're willing to play the atheist, Jeff, go for it. It may be
>> refreshing for some of the readers to get the real McCoy, instead of
>> the the people like me who just SOUND atheist :)
 
>Christian you don't sound atheist any more than I sound agnostic.
 
It's shocking, the number of people who don't know the difference
between atheism and agnosticism. I guess that since much of the time I'm
arguing with believers, I seem atheist by comparison. I've only gone toe
to toe with atheists a couple of times, and it was really odd to find
myself arguing for God :)
 
>Seriously, I'm interested what Jeff has to say.  Between the three of
>us, it should be interesting for the other readers.
 
Jeff, it's your serve :)
 
I wonder how many silent readers we have? Every once in a while, a
message shows up from someone new who's obviously been keeping up. It's
like being on stage, with the lights too bright to see the size of the
audience :)


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: The.Computer.Gods@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (The Computer Gods)
Newsgroups: hsv.flame
Subject: Computers
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:40:06 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/2.0 - Gateway, Huntsville AL

After working with computer for several years, here are my observations:
 
1) Amiga's are overpriced kids machines.
2) Integraph's hardware is plain overpriced.
3). Their software doesn't work.
4). Clones for the most part use antiquated operating systems.
5) Macs are overpriced Amigas.
 
Did I miss anyone in the crowd here? 



--  
 * The.Computer.Gods@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic