HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:53:00 GMT

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <Aug.14.00.44.18.1992.19112@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
>hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>>>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>>>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).

>> ...Some Christians try to deal with this by separating the
>> Law into a portion that is moral, and is binding on everyone, and a
>> portion that is specific to the covenant with the Jews.  The latter is
>> often called the "ceremonial law".

How do the Christians who do this justify carving (supposedly) their god's
laws into some that apply to them (i.e. non-Jews) and some that don't?
I know there are Christians who do this, but I've never seen any reason
within their religious framework for such selective enforcement.

I also don't see why homosexuality is emphasized (by Christians) more than
other sexual restrictions, like not having sex during a woman's period.
I know of plenty of laws against the former, none against the latter.

>> Others say that morals must be
>> based entirely on the NT.

>I also agree with this summary and conclusion.

Like I've said before, some say (at least some of) Leviticus still applies,
some don't.  I still don't see how it's justifiable to ignore (or modify the
penalties of) laws supposedly laid down by god; it seems only god would have
the authority to do that.  All the arguments against enforcing Leviticus are
from humans (even if some were apostles); are Christians supposed to obey
their god, or trust in the opinion of some other human that THAT particular
law can be ignored?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:09:12 GMT

In article <71182@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug13.161221.5779@leland.Stanford.EDU>
yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|>>In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|>>|> 
|>>|> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
|>>
|>>So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
|>>a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.
|>
|>I thought he was asserting that killing in self-defense and
|>hacking a few people up with a chain saw are *legally*
|>equivalent unless the law says they aren't.
|>
|>
             
"Legally equivalent unless the law says they aren't."?
The car is blue, unless the color indicates otherwise:-)
I think you mean *technically* equal. *legally* OK is social 
permission; *morally* OK is personal permission.   

Brian /-|-\
===============================================================
Disclaimer:  Contents may settle after shipping.
From: vandelhg@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (MCG)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Vanderbilt
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:26:16 GMT

			I will simply say this:  try reading the periodical
"Creation/Evolution".  It's a small thing, and unfortunately my library
dropped it due to limited funds (and the apparent need to buy everything
the IEEE puts out).  However, C/E takes articles from Creationists &
Scientists, and the Scientists do an amazingly good job of totally
destroying the pseudoscience arguments of the creationists.  (By the way,
when I say "Scientist", I intended to say Evolutionist -- I'm not denying
the existence of scientists who believe in creationism).
			And finally, one thing has always confused me -- why do many
Creationists worship the Bible more than their god?  They refuse to admit
that the Bible can be wrong, or is at least allegorical.  They refuse to
allow their god any more creativity than what is written in Scripture. 
Could a god have created the universe through normal physical/quantum
means?  The almost universal answer is no -- god *must* have worked through
the absurd methods we have managed to derive from this ancient
Hebrew/Aramaic text.  
		So then, creationists -- why do you worship a book more than your god? 
Isn't there something in that *very* same book that says something about
idolators?




MCG>
Existence?
From: tom@dingo.imagen.com (tom lowdermilk)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:18:40 GMT
Reply-To: tom@dingo.imagen.com (tom lowdermilk)
Organization: imagen

In article <1992Aug11.220433.6859@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
|> 
|> 	NO !    I'm God !!!!!!!
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 	I'll tell you all what......if ANY of you can perform a 
|> mirical I can prove I am God by toping it (performing a better
|> mirical !)  !!!!!!
|> 
|> 
|> -- 

   ... try spelling correctly, THAT would be a miracle.

   tjl

   tom@dingo.imagen.com

===================================================================

  "Something made him check the data-link files on the material they
   were receiving from Man-home. He didn't keep it in his head but their
   dating system was well known because of its oddity. All events were
   referenced from the time they had tortured a Trinity of Criminals
   on Golgotha Hill, nailing the Father and the Son and the Grandfather
   to wood so that buzzards (a carrion bird) might feast upon their livers."

   Man-Kzin Wars IV
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: <None>
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

My apologies for assuming things about the net. From now on,
I'll refer to titles, not numbers. Sorry people, I'm new to this.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Enic Eng Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au

Those who believe in an afterlife will not be dissappointed.
				--me.
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'
   				--Don Marquis
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:26:57 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Aug12.170907.7899@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
 mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell) writes:
>       Bible translations?  Revised Standard Version
>                            New American Standard
>                            New International Version
>
>       These are just a few of the popular versions.  However, when
>       reading be sure not to take a verse or chapter or book as
>       sufficient in and of itself.  Everything is woven together.

Of the three mentioned by DeWayne I've only perused the New International
Version (NIV).  I think it is reasonably readable (actually they also
produce a real thumper of a version called the NIV Study Bible that has
lots of notes etc.).  The other "favourite" of mine is the "Good News Bible"
(officially the Today's English Version, TEV) which I reckon is the
most readable, but (and you've probably already guessed this) it gets
continually attacked by people I know for not having a "correct"
translation.

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
From: noonan@icd3 (Michael Noonan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Christians and Capital Punishment
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:17:39 GMT

There has been some talk as to whether Christianity proscribes the
death penalty for certain offenses.

To be fair, a significant part of Christianity (that part called
Catholicism) does not support the death penalty under any
circumstances.  I don't have the source with me, but I read in
a Catholic-affiliated news letter that a "deputy of the Vatican"
(whatever that is) has recently (a few months ago) released a
statement saying that the view of pro-life/anti-abortion is not
a compatible view with pro-capital punishment.  If you are pro-life,
you must be just that, pro-life. 

I do know for a fact that Pope John Paul wrote a letter to Gov. Ann
Richards of Texas asking for a pardon of a man who had raped and
killed a 76 year old nun.  Richards gave the killer a 30 day stay of
execution and then killed him.  (The age and # of days of the stay
are off the top of my head, but this story made big news in Texas
Catholic circles. [My family is devoutly Catholic.])

Now, while a statement by a deputy is not canon, it is interesting to
note that the Catholic Church is moving towards this stance.  (At
least I hope they are.)
The most die-hard death-penalty supporters I know are fundamentalists.
It seems to me that faith in an afterlife, and a view that God will
sort it all out allows one to hold a favorable view towards capital
punishment more easily.  Maybe I'm odd in this respect, but my
evolution towards atheism has been leading me to respect life to the
extent that it should never be ended - whatever disagreeable
conclusions this forces one to make.

I will admit that if the Catholic Church is in fact moving this way,
it would appear that it is picking and choosing what it thinks is
reasonable from the Bible (i.e. ignoring the punishments of Leviticus).

Flame away, yall.  This is my first post.
If I *can* be corrected, I have faith that I *will* be corrected.

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: More on history
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:41:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.142509.28179@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>What I'm looking for is specific instances in which the biblical account is
>different than that available from extra-biblical sources.  The major
>things (the flood, exodous, egyptian plagues, creation) are obvious and I'm
>looking more for things like misordered/matched rulers, for instance.
>The history of the bible SHOULD be correct in a large number of places, since
>a lot of the text originated when it was current events.  There are errors,
>though, that should disallow claims as to it being used as a historical
>reference book (much as I'd be slow to credit the Illiad, though it has a lot
>of Med geography as a geography reference book).
>
>Inclusions, anyone?  What is your favorite obscure mismatch?
>
>
>-- 
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
>The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.


Herod the Great, whom the NT credits with the massacre of the
innocent, died four years before the relevant time.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 20 Aug 1992 01:33:35 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dial-an-atheist

In article <1992Aug19.072120.28928@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) says:
>
>        Does anyone have a number for it ? I live in NorthEast Ohio.
>That is the 216/Cleveland area :-)
>

  Columbus, Ohio - 614-294-0300
  Mansfield, Ohio - 419-522-2686

  The columbus # is serviced by the prominent atheist, scientist, and
writer, Frank Zindler and is supposed to be QUITE entertaining.

  Why not dial 1-800-882-mary just for kicks?  It's a blast, and
it adds on to the church's phone bill. >;-)

dave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Survey) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:38:12 +0000


In article <z+!n1_d.jfh@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com writes:
>Just want to point out something about this posting.  It didn't come from
>Usenet.  It was sent from CompuServe using the mail-to-news gateway at
>Berkeley.  Unless they have another account somewhere, they won't even see
>any followups. 

Oh *Goodie*!!!  You realise Compost$erve charge *BIG BUCKS* for
incoming mail.  You don't think we should all forward all those
mega-crossposted articles back to the senders, in case they missed
the replies? :-)))

G
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:49:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sNBNPB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>> In article <l8frfdINN3vg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM| danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Da
>> |And this argument taken to its logical conclusion would
>> |seem to suggest that the word "objective" is useless.
>> |Right?
>> 
>>   Not at all.  Take a large rock, say 20 pounds.  Hold it directly
>>   over your foot.  Now drop it.  You *will* hit your foot.  In any
>>   culture, at any time, under any circumstances.
>
>Hmm.  What about in 2090, in a culture which lives in a space station in
>geostationary orbit under zero gravity?
>
>What about in a Virtuality virtual reality system?
>
>

  OK, you got me there.  I still maintain, however, that an
  experiment can be conducted under an appropriate set of guidelines
  to objectively verify gravity.  The same cannot be said for
  religious experience.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:28:17 GMT


	James Meritt sez:

	........I've read the whole thing straight through a
	number of times....and a few others [I.E. Pearls of 
	Great Price, Koran, Mormon, ect,ect....]. So? Want to
	guess my position ?  ;-)


	BRACKETS MINE !!!!!!!!! <I do not have an editor yet
	and have to type it all in !>


	Let me see...you don't buy it either, eh ?


	:^)

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:59:01 GMT


	Antony Rose sez:

	<quoting others about reading the bible>


	My friend, do you know what the New Testament "as a whole"
	says?  If you did you wouldn't hold the position that you
	do.



	Actually.....I have read the WHOLE bible (I am not joking,
I spent 5 years in a religious school 'system' of sorts and had
spent a year on the OT and NT apiece). I KNOW what it says, even
though I do not have the WHOLE BOOK memorized,  am familiar with it
and know what the NT says "as a whole" ? Guess what, I don't buy it.
The more I studied it, the less sense the mess made ! We see that the
statement Mr. Rose said about knowing what the NT says "as a whole"
 is not true, I know it and hold an atheist position.



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:18:02 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

In article <92233.093053RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:

>In response to Griff's statement regarding the course of celestial bodies:
>In the Qur'anic verse the word does not exclusively mean "circular" paths
>traversed by celestial bodies. And I did *not* say that either. By rounded,
>is meanst the path or trajectory traversed such that after some time the
>particle orbitting comes to the same point. As such, circular, elliptical
>and other such trajectories are included in "rounded." The problem of
>translating the Arabic into equivalent English terms got into the way
>of carrying the full meaning. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.
>- H. Siddiqui.

You seem to have missed the point.  Even if your strange definition of
the word rounded was the one Mohammed intended, then you don't need a
brain the size of a planet or to be in personal contact with god, to
be able to see that the stars, the sun and the moon do indeed periodically 
come back to the same point relative to us.  Try looking out of the window 
at the same time on two successive days.  Even an illiterate desert nomad 
could have worked this out.

-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:27:00 GMT

	It's a kinder and gentler nation dammit, a thousand points
of light are blinding us to the new world order, and the Republican
party is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The Constitutional
seperation of church and state is being trampled as religious
radicals Pat Buccannan and Pat Robertson attempt to nail the American
public to the cross and the elected leader of this nation proudly
asserts that "this is one nation, under God," whether we like it or not!

	The Republican party proclaims that it is the party of
judeo-christian values and that the Democrats are godless, anti-family
baby-killers. They claim that either you are either pro-family and 
anti-homosexual, or that if you support the right of homosexual couples
to the same legal protections that heterosexual couples presently enjoy
then you are somehow trying to destroy the traditional two parent
male-female family. I'm afraid I don't see the corelation. Do they
perhaps fear that currently happy married couples will split because a
gay man is allowed to visit his male spouse in the hospital as a
legitimate member of family? Will divorce rates skyrocket because a
lesbian woman and her partner may combine their income on one tax form?
Would someone please like to explain to me how the "traditional" family
could possibly be hurt by allowing homosexual couples the _same_ rights
that heterosexual couples are granted?

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Whither Song of Solomon?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:44:21 GMT

mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell) writes:
: In article <Bss5ps.190@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
: >I'll make this short:
: >
: >Many have used the Song of Solomon as an example of "pornography" existing
: >between the leather covers of the Bible.  My question is, what Book and what
: >verses comprise the SoS?  I'm interested in checking this out for myself.  
: >
:
: mike, the book that you are inquiring about is The Song of Solomon and
: is contained in the Old Testament of the Bible.  Pornographic?  I think
: not.  Enjoy :)

I seem to remember hearing that the Song of Solomon was banned somewhere
or other when someone tried to have it published separately from the
bible.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.182030.1520@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug11.220433.6859@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
|>>
|>>	NO !    I'm God !!!!!!!
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>	I'll tell you all what......if ANY of you can perform a 
|>>mirical I can prove I am God by toping it (performing a better
|>>mirical !)  !!!!!!
|>>
|>
|>Forget the spelling test.
|>
|>My God makes the sun rise from the east.  Can you make it rise from the west?
|>
               
Sun not rise in east.  Earth spin round round.  Make big fire ball look
like it rise.
Your god power is fake.  You must worship Loki or other trickster god.
So speak Mot.

Mot, Warrior-Librarian of the North-by-North-East
==========================================================
"Mot no need index, Mot KNOW where book is!" -Mot  'Zen and the Art of
Bibliographies'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: 3005904@jeff-lab.QueensU.CA (Colleen Davis)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Queen's University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:40:10 GMT


> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> 
> > In article <1992Aug11.171843.16382@ccs.QueensU.CA> 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.c
> > >OK, here it is.
> > >You've been wrong all along.
> > >There is no YHWH, Allah, whatever.
> > >*I'M* GOD!
> > >
> > >Yes, you heard right, I'm God.
> > >The Supreme Being.
> > >The Divine Creator.
> > >
> > >Now, if there's anyone who'd like to try to prove me wrong....
> > >
> > >colleen
> > 
> > 
> > Can you walk on water?

O thou of little faith!
Of course I can walk on water, but I choose not to.
Your need of a demonstration shows the weakness of your faith in Me.

colleen
> 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism