HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:22:11 GMT

swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:

... delided ...

:   From what I've seen of her beliefs, they are outside what most people 
: would call "Christian." 
: 
: >>Once again I am discussing philosophies, not trying to divide.  Christians
: >>would call the woman who refers to herself as Pagan/Christian a blasphemer.
: >>She is welcomed among us.
: >Not all X-ians would condemn her.  Not all pagans would welcome her.
:   Also, not considering her a Christian isn't the same as condemning her.

What right do you have do decide whether a person is a Christian or a pagan?

You are getting tiring - and boring. You appear to be as dogmatic as the
worst of the Christian fundamentalists. You should have sufficient evidence,
from this group, that there are many who disagree with your beliefs. This
alone should cast them into doubt.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25892 alt.atheism:25717
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:51:46 GMT

In article 726047840@marsh, martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
> Christians among you: explain this.
> 
> If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
> descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
> in our genetic pool today?
> 
> Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
> American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
> same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
> must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
> a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
> would like to hear your arguments.

This is more speculation than argument, since the Bible offers no
explanation of the different physical features of the various races.
[As an aside, I reject the young earth view, and would date the appearance 
of modern man somewhere between 15K and 40K years ago.]

Gen. 1:28 records God giving the order to A&E to multiply and fill the earth.
They seemed to fail in this, as the geographic places mentioned in chapters
1-8 are all in or near the Mesopotamian plains. Then post-flood, to Noah and
sons, the order is given again (9:1). They still don't spread out but remain 
in that region until the Tower of Babel incident (Gen 11). At that point it
records God as confusing their language and spreading them out over the earth. 
It is possible that the physical features of the races were introduced super-
naturally at that point as an additional incentive to promote migration. 

I realize that supernatural appeals are unsatisfactory to atheists, and that 
this is also unfalsifiable. But you "would like to hear" it, so I offer it, 
as an possible explanation for those who "take the Bible at all seriously". 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       --Paul Davies (on the cosmos)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:18:52 GMT

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>I THINK CHRISTIANITY IS BAD FOR A PERSON'S MENTAL HEALTH.

It seems reasonable to ask Ms. Hausmann to demonstrate that
Christianity is bad for a person's mental health.  (She says more in
her post, but the demonstration is not complete.  I'd like to respond
to the argument in its full form.)

On another topic:

>To be a good
>scientist, a person must know how to use logic, how to see through
>assumptions, and ought to question everything.  Needless to say,
>this is in opposition to Christianity.

Certainly the use of logic is not encouraged by some (perhaps most)
Christian groups, especially those that make heavy use of dogma.
However, as I see it, the criticism does not apply to the entire
religion.  For instance, my own beliefs fall under the heading
"Christian", but I have not been required by my church to check logic
at the door, nor am I encouraged not to question assumptions.


                                  Gregg Skinner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ksand-060193115920@wintermute.apple.com> <C0H8rD.6wI.1@cs.cmu.edu>
	<1993Jan11.183333.29688@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:22:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.183333.29688@cs.tulane.edu> goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil 
(Victoria Goff) writes:

   >Hey, guys! You will never know God like this. There is no formula that
   >when expanded reveals God.

  Quite so, quite so. But I'm afraid your remarks are irrelevant to the
point at issue. It behooves those who believe most strongly in the Lord -
does it not? - as well as those who sadly reject all divine Grace, to
know what they are talking about when "logic" is at issue.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <10PI02zb30eg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>I don't think that the Mormons believe every word of their Apostles is
>true.  But when they do tell me that they believe a certain article is
>Scripture, I have to assume that they are telling me the truth.
>
Well, then I suggest you argue that point with them and have them
defend it.  I can only defend my own beliefs.  I haven't heard
anyone here defend such a view.  Why don't we (as I had already
suggested before) stick to arguing with each other rather than
non-present 3rd parties.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.25
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 12:39:50 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 25

                       bhisma-drona-pramukhatah
                         sarvesam ca mahi-ksitam
                        uvaca partha pasyaitan
                           samavetan kurun iti

  
bhisma--Grandfather Bhisma; drona--the teacher Drona; pramukhatah--in
front of; sarvesam--all; ca--also; mahi-ksitam--chiefs of the world;
uvaca--said; partha--O son of Prtha; pasya--just behold; etan--all of
them; samavetan--assembled; kurun--the members of the Kuru dynasty;
iti--thus.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	In the presence of Bhisma, Drona and all the other chieftains of
the world, the Lord said, Just behold, Partha, all the Kurus assembled
here.

  
                                PURPORT

	As the Supersoul of all living entities, Lord Krsna could
understand what was going on in the mind of Arjuna. The use of the word
Hrsikesa in this connection indicates that He knew everything. And the
word Partha, or the son of Kunti, or Prtha, is also similarly
significant in reference to Arjuna. As a friend, He wanted to inform
Arjuna that because Arjuna was the son of Prtha, the sister of His own
father Vasudeva, He had agreed to be the charioteer of Arjuna. Now what
did Krsna mean when He told Arjuna to ``behold the Kurus''? Did Arjuna
want to stop there and not fight? Krsna never expected such things from
the son of His aunt Prtha. The mind of Arjuna was thus predicted by the
Lord in friendly joking.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |             (kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)             |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan8.190917.15570@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...
> 
>In article <C0I4Ft.8C6@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>I am sorry.  I couldn't accept the atheist belief even though I thought of myself
>as an atheist for the longest time.  I couldn't just do it to the groove and do
>it, just do it because it feels good.  

Please don't mistake atheism for hedonism/epicureanism.  Not all of us, when
we decide that the "parents" aren't "home" eat up all the ice cream and poop
on the rug.  Morality to many atheists like myself is internally conceived,
not externally.  

>|> Okay, why did God create Satan?  He was omniscient and omnipotent, after all.

>Satan was originally an angel, as you may or may not know.  He and all his 

I was aware of that, actually (I was a Christian at one point).  This once
again raises my "why create those who'll make bad choices" issue from other
posts...

******************************************************************************
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
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:56:02 GMT

00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>
>> 	Why is it you can't even _conceive_
>> 	of existence without a deity behind it?
>HOW CAN THIS BE?  HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR EXISTENCE?  WHO CREATED YOU?
>WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?

I exist.  What more is there to explain?

My mother and my father created me.  Who created your god?

My biological purpose is to carry on the existence of humanity.  My
philosophical purpose is to accept myself and to do as I please.  Why
must I have a purpose beyond this?

>> 	What would it take to make you even _consider_
>> 	that your god is not perfect, or not even real?
>I HAVE CONSIDER IT, AS HAS MOST CHRISTIANS, BUT WE CANNOT CONSIDER ANYTHING
>ELSE BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE I AM.

I know what you're trying to say (you're trying to draw on the "I Am
Who Am" business), but you haven't even bothered to phrase it
correctly, so it comes out sounding like you're trying to say that
you're God.  Besides, you're shouting.  Please quiet down.

Most Christians I've spoken with have *not* considered that God might
not exist.  You're another example: it's like saying 'I've considered
that Santa Claus might not exist, but of course he does, so trying
to show that he doesn't is nonsense."

>THE PEACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU!!

Jesus was crucified two thousand years ago for spreading ideas that
threatened the status quo and refusing to explain himself when given
the chance.  I find peace in myself; I need no help from other people.

-- 
_/_/_/  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: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:50:32 GMT
	<ksand-060193102239@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-060193102239@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >Let's give another example where I indeed agree that premises don't
   >matter concerning the final logical conclusion:

  What, if anything, do you believe that it means for an argument to
be logically valid?
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs._1984_
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:23:38 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <C09v12.Jwz.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>The Star Trek show's point seems to be that Picard is so motivated by
>>the prospect of further torture that his visual perceptions actually
>>change. Nevertheless, Picard refuses to say that he sees five lights, 
>>even though he apparently does see them. Picard remains defiant even in
>>the face of the "treachery" of his own neurons.  
> 
> I did not interpret it in that way.  Picard admits, in the final scene,
> that he was indeed going to admit to seeing five lights.  Although I
> think that it is due to the limitation of the media, and the simplistic
> romanticism of the audience, that he did not.


I may be mistaken, but I think that the last time that Picard is asked
about the lights, he stands silent for about 20 seconds, and then
yells somewhat incoherently: "There... are... four... lights!" Then
he staggers out in his nifty jammies.

My conclusions are largely based on this final act of defiance. If,
in fact, I misheard old Picard, then I'll revise my opinion. Maybe
I should ask the folks on alt.fan.star.trek...


> -- 
> Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
> Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
>                        DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"As private parts are we to the Gods: they play with us for their sport!"
  -- Blackadder

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Christianity and Logic
Date: 07 Jan 93 06:18:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Christianity purports to explain how the universe and world
that we know came into being and how it works and what will
happen next. 

It doesn't claim to be logical.

I would think that if the universe and world that we know appear
logical to us, then a true religion (ie the religion which explains
how things actually are, as opposed to the wrong religions which
don't get the sum exactly right) would appear logical to us as
well.

But, I don't really think that it necessarily matters.

-jen
 
-=Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.=-

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25902 alt.atheism:25732
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:16:21 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <1993Jan11.221750.9774@iscsvax.uni.edu> sperry2699@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> 
>> i think that what Pat Robertson is doing is criminal
>> and we shouldnt just ignore him. fortunately i am nowhere
>> near the asshole and when his cultural revolution comes
>> i certainly wouldn't want to be near his environs.
>> -- 
>> -- Pat Monardo
>> -- pjm@cshl.org
>
>Why is what Pat Robertson is doing criminal?  Sorry that you must lower
>yourself to the use of those "colourful metaphors" to express your opinion
>(a.i. "asshole").  
>
>
>ECM
>

very good question. i dont *know* that is criminal, i *think*
it is criminal. that is why he infuriates me.
i am trying to figure out exactly what is wrong with
what he is saying right now. treason? well, the constitution
is pretty dead, so it's a little late for that.
let's see, the term "hate crime" comes to mind.
so help me, what exactly is this cultural revolution
he wants, who are the "elite" whom he stirs up
so much wrath about. it seems to be beyond the
mere hollywood "cultural elite" from the last convention.
does it include everyone in government, business
and academia who opposes him? is the population he
opposes so vast that it really is best to simply
"contain" him?

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:07:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5111940@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-040193164244@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>    >Agree, and as long as we can't agree upon the validity of a premise, then
>    >I don't see a point to agree upon a the validity of a logical construction.
> 
>   Allow me to adjust your terminology a bit: the truth of a premiss, the
> logical validity of an argument.
> 
>   First, your present remarks make nonsense of your previous attacks on
> Gregg Skinner's argument, since that argument was precisely that there *is*
> logically valid reasoning in Christianity.

My point was that we didn't have an agreement on the premises, so the
conclusions drawn ended up as opinions, and not as clear logical
conclusions.

>   Second, there are very many cases in science as well as in
> philosophy or everyday life where agreement on the validity of an
> argument is both useful and important, whether or not the truth of the
> premisses are agreed on.  I'm sure you can figure this out for
> yourself.

Note again, there's an *agreement on the validity of an argument*, your
own words. We don't have an agreement on the validity of if sin exists,
or if God exists, and so on (most metaphysical constructs). In other
words most of the Christian doctrines are not considered to be a priori
blocks, unless you are a Christian. Or, for Christians there is logic
in Christianity, but this is not a universal agreement, instead a local
one.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25624 alt.atheism:25462 soc.culture.jewish:24837
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:34:30 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

I wrote, quoting the bible:

>                          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
>    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
> and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
> and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
> of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
> and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
> Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
> evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

>In <1ifq5lINNiuf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)  wrote:
> 	Why should ANY kid, even one that is drunken and "wastrel" !
> 
> 	The DEATH sentence for KIDS ! For ANY reason ? Without a TRIAL !
> 
> 	THAT is barbaric !
 
In article <765351d8174923t251@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>  Huh?  The 'child' in question had to be a grown man.  Taking
>  ANY legislation out of context can be a hoot; if you don't
>  believe it, crack open any book of Revised Statutes and read
>  a single paragraph.
>
>  (I was taught that this particular passage is in effect a dead
>  letter since the conditions attached are almost impossible to
>  satisfy.  My teacher claimed that there were no executions
>  under this one in the entire recorded history of the Jews.)

   This passage gives no indication what age the son is. The son could be
a kid or a grown man. The passage is not taken out of context. I keyed
in the whole paragraph. The previous paragraph is about the rights of 
the first born son. The subsequent paragraph is about disposing of bodies
from executions via hanging. The conditions are not impossible to satisfy,
unless your talking about conditions attached from outside the bible. It
sounds like you need to crack open the bible. 

                       -John David Munch
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi)
Subject: Re: Jihad in Islam (was Re:Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:20:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.222024.25577@netcom.com>, zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan11.153815.17814@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
|> >|> Ok, do you agree then that Salmon Rushdie deserves the death sentence ?
|> >
|> >My personal opinion is yes. But there are a lot of other Muslims who wouldn't
|> >agree with me on this point.....
|> 
|> I happen to be one of them! I believe in the absolute freedom of thought,
|> beliefs,  and expression thereof.
|> 

I believe in freedom of thought, beliefs and expression thereof too. But 
*insults* based on a sick mentality does *not* according to my view fall 
into anyone of these things...

|> >|> Who decides on what is evil and what is good ?  
|> >
|> >There can only be one answer from a religious perspective and that is God
|> >*alone*.
|> 
|> We can't get God to give us an opinion on each little incident. It is 
|> enevitable that men and women will have to make some decisions by themsleves.
|> Those decisions will be based on their beliefs.
|> 

True. But ultimately it is God who decide what is right and what is wrong.
We can walk around thinking that a certain practice is right while it is 
actually wrong. So ultimately God and only God is the Judge concerning what 
is right and wrong....

|> >
|> >Every society has a constituion and in a *true* Islamic society this constitution
|> >is the Laws in the Quran and the Sunnah. Whatever is decide in the frame of this
|> >is up to the people and the state. 
|> 
|> The quran and sunna are inadequate as a constitution. They do not address many
|> of the issues in a constitution, including the structure of government, the
|> powers of the state, nor does it address the issues dealing with the due process
|> of law, rules of arrest and trials, rules of evidence, treatment of prisonors.
|> They can serve as basis of a constitution but alone they can't form one.

The word constitution was propably badly picked but English isn't my mothertongue 
and that was the best word I could think of.

The Quran and Sunnah doesn't deal with all things and it is because of this Islam
is not subjugated under the change of time. There is alot of space inbetween were 
the society itself can form its opinion. *BUT* these things should be in accordance 
with the Quran and Sunnah in a true Islamic Society. So these Laws are untouchable
in the sense that you can't create a Law which is *against* what the Quran and the 
Sunnah claims to be Hallal. Or make something which is Haram Hallal. Then you are not 
following Islam anymore and thus can't claim to be a *true* Islamic Society.

So in the frame of the Laws in the Quran and Sunnah is up to the people and the state...

Wassalam
Gani