HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:56:44 GMT

boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:


>In article <C041Lq.I1o.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>>                                                     The notion
>> of the Bible being only in Latin and forbidden to the common man
>> was a mistaken Roman teaching.

The meaning of Roman here is the Roman Catholic Church, not the Roman Empire.

>Er, wait a minute . . . didn't the Romans SPEAK Latin?  As I understand
>events, in the 4th century a team led by St. Jerome prepared a version
>of the Bible written in "Vulgar Latin", the language of ordinary folks.
>For the next dozen or so centuries, Latin was basically the common
>language of academia and international commerce;  the Catholic Church
>simply used that common language for its own needs.  Only in the last
>few centuries, as the role of Latin was usurped first by French then
>English, that the conservatism of the Church caused the arguments over
>continued use of Latin liturgy.

>Some churches did use a Bible in the local language;  the "Authorized
>Version" (or King James Bible) was published in England in 1611.

This was in the Anglican Church, not the Roman Church.  As for the use of
Latin, it was used by scholars as the universal language, however, it was 
against Canon Law in the Roman Church for anyone who was not a priest to
interpret the scriptures, and it was forbidden to translate it into any
laguage of the people.  The official position was that people, if they read
the scriptures directly, would misinterpret them and disagree with the Roman
Church.  Perhaps they would have been more honest to say that people might have
interpreted them more accurately and disagreed with the Roman Church. :)

>It's a pity, though . . . Latin is so much prettier than gutteral
>English . . .     :-)

I prefer to be able to understand my worship.  (I was brought up Roman, after
the switch to English, fortunately.)

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:16:36 GMT

In article <ksand-271292171955@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent
Sandvik ) wrote:
> 
> In article <3401.2B38AE26@catpe.alt.za>,
> Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) wrote:
> >  KS> I would otherwise agree with the statements. Unfortunately
> >  KS> Christianity has had its dark ages when the evangelism effort of the
> >  KS> good message had produced very aggressive and cruel actions. In other
> >  KS> words Christianity as any other mass movement systems relies on the
> >  KS> internal inertia, and  sometimes this social force could mutate into
> >  KS> something that the  original idea opposed.
> > 
> > True indeed. But atheism has also had its dark ages. Just consider the last 70 >years or so in the USSR, where some 20 million people perished because they >failed to understand the only way to universal happiness. 
> 
> I agree, and there's something in common with both the atheist/political
> movement and middle Ages Christianity. And that key word is 'fanaticism'.
> Another good key word is 'prejudices'.
> 

I disagree.  What went on in Russia and the rest of the USSR had nothing to
do with atheism.  It had all to do with Power and Control as practiced by
Stalin.  The Othodox Church was a rival or potential rival.  There are two
ways to take power, from within or without.  Since Stalin was no choirboy,
from within wasn't a choice, so he went with from without.  There is
nothing in athiest philosophy, if this isn't an oxymoron, that says kill
those who disagree with you.  Stalin was "just" consolidating power.  He
could have espoused any other philosophy and would probably have done
exctly the same thing.  So I don't think what went on in Russia had
anything even remotely to do with atheism.

On the other hand, as seen in graphically pointed out in recent threads,
the Bible is chock full of hate and killing.  The injustises done in the
name of Christianity, then, have their root in the stated philosophy of
Christianity.

James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:40:13 -0500 
From: Geoffrey Spear <gspear+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Agnostics
	<1992Dec21.162934.2439@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

	No doubt he's been reading a bit too much Descartes.  Although
Descartes was a great philosopher & mathematician, I don't think his
observation that nothing but his own existance can be certain should be taken
very seriously.  Sure, my sneses could be wrong, but an evil demon who
constantly deceives me when I try to add 2 numbers?  That's a *little*
silly!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24632 talk.religion.misc:24807
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: I praise the lord and so do I.
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:29:55 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Dec24.160320.15361@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Anything that is not physically impossible is, IMNSHO, possible; even logically
>inconsistent ideas like an Omnicient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniloving god
>who is vengeful "down to the third and fourth generation", provides for eternal
>torment, commands genocide and never manifests to those of us who need
>empirical evidence (I think this is what the Catholics mean by "the mystery of 
>faith).
>
>I do ascribe a vanishingly small probability to the existence of such a being, 
>but hey, Schizophrenia is not impossible.
>
For a long time I have wanted to explore a hypothesis of mine, but every time 
I explained it I was scoffed at.
My hypothesis is this: People with multiple personalities have an accurate
perception of the world, and people with only one personality are limited
and handicapped.

I don't understand why so many people laugh at my hypothesis, when it is
exactly what christian dogma teachs.

                    -John David Munch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:09:54 GMT

In <shroud.723917875@camelot> shroud@camelot.bradley.edu (Gary Achenbach) writes:

>In <1992Dec9.080120.28144@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

>>To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not*
>>exist.  Don't tell me you don't even understand this at this elementary
>>level.

>No.  To be a "strong" atheist requires a positive belief in the nonexistence
>of God.  "Weak" atheism is simply the lack of positive belief in the
>_existence_ of God.  There is a difference.  I cannot say with any degree
>of certainty that God (or Allah, Zeus, Quetzlcoatl, etc)
>does not exist, however, I see absolutely no evidence that any of the
>above entities exist either.

>Sheesh.  You'd think that if people are going to be monitoring this newsgroup,
>they'd read the FAQ.

Oops, sorry.  I've read the (relevant bits of the) FAQ now.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:41:00 GMT
	<1992Dec28.230529.19778@arden.linet.org>
	<MRMIKE.92Dec29110050@michelotti.ae.ge.com>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati OH


# In article <MRMIKE.92Dec29110050@michelotti.ae.ge.com>, 
# mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) writes:


mm> Actually, if my memory does not fail me, John die of natural
                                                  ^^^
This should, of course, be "died"

mm> thos ideas just, right, or correct, only capable of creating
    ^^^^
And this should be "those"

                                                        - MM

Whose Ispell barfed on him.  That should teach me to have faith in technology.
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Summary: you all are missing one point
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:40:10 GMT

There is a better explanation of this seeming correlation.

Power. 

(As with all sweeping generalizations, no doubt this generalization
must fail to explain some events. But I believe it is relevant.)

When one feels that one has the power to understand
and CHANGE one's environment, that person more than likely will not
believe (fervently) in some form of deity.

It is only because that in the society we live, a Ph.D.  or a rich
person has (real or imagined) some power that they feel no urgent
desire to resort to some form of all powerful deities.

A Ph.D. or a rich person can become a fundamentalist if s/he
feels, for whatever reason, powerless and helpless about his/her
environment. And if somebody less skilled or empowered challenges
their belief, heaven help him, for the believer will exert all the
power that s/he does have to quell that blasphemy.

There is one more reason for an already powerful person to become
an apparently fervent believer. It is when s/he sees in the religion
an opportunity to expand his/her power. Medieval Inquisition comes to
mind.

On the other hand, the poor and under-educated feel they don't have
much power and choice (whether they actually have some power and
choice is irrelevant to how they feel) as far as their environment in
this society is concerned.  Thus, many of them resort to some form of
all powerful deity that will fulfill their desires for them.

To the optimists who expressed the hope that the atheist flag would
fly in the end, I hope you and me are right. But as long as there
remain people who feel powerless and helpless in a society, I am
afraid it will remain just that - a hope. Mind you, eradication of
poverty alone won't eliminate the feeling of powerlessness some feels.
Even eradication of poverty combined with (good) universal education
won't do that. In this sense, violence and religion cannot be
separated. They are just two different manifestations of one human
desire, the power.
Just as education and universal rich won't eliminate the violence in
society, they won't make the religion obsolete.
It can only be achieved by changing (at least our perception of) human
nature.

One caution to those who make the connection of brightness and the
rich.

The connection sounds perilously close to asserting that they
deserve to be rich because they are smart kids.
The brightness as much depends on environmental stimuli as it depends
on the genetic talents.
Don't you think rich kids show more skill because they generally tend
to have good care and education from the start, a vicious circle?


jeon

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry)
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:32:00 GMT

In article <martin.725562276@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>Tonight I saw the film "Leap of Faith" with some friends of mine 
>who are pretty religious.  I'm a pretty big fan of Steve Martin,
>especially his earlier films, and I'd sort of expected to have a 
>bit of a laugh at evangelism at my friends' expense.
>
>Was I wrong...  Steve Martin seems to have gone really quite
>sickeningly religious in this movie.

I have not seen yet, but probably will.  Just read about it in my 
paper (in Colorado Springs, not Louisiana) and they basically said
that it pissed off several (all but one mentioned in the article)
pastors/preists/whatsits and religous-types.  Made me wanna go see.

What really bothered one was the "implicit message that all Christians
are ignorant rubes and that all evangelists are manipulating hucksters."
(Hey - if the shoes fit...  grin)

But along the lines of the original post, Steve Martin said he expected
differences of opinion about the film.. "I'm curious to see if people
will find it an uplifting movie or a satire on those characters.  Will
they see it as anti-religous.  Will they see it a pro-religious."
It is an interesting ambiguity, and I think that someone would have
to be pretty desperate to seek a comedy for confirmation of belief or
non-belief.

What's interesting is that Martin studied for his role at a Charismatic
Ministries Conference in Tulsa.  A former graduate (Ted Haggard) has
now set up shop here in the Springs (the New Life Church) where they
"practice" faith healing.  Scary.
-- 
Quinn McHenry               "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it
mchenry@engr.latech.edu      is necessary that at least once in your life
Biomedical Engineering       you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
Louisiana Tech University                 - Rene Descartes
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24448 talk.religion.misc:24712
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:22:53 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <Bzw01t.7ED@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>
>> For example, hatred of homosexuals is not a Biblical theme.
>> Hatred of homosex certainly is, which is not the same thing.  Don't
>> go off on some psychological tangent on me here-- THEY ARE NOT THE
>> SAME THING, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE.  How do I know?  Because I love
>> homosexuals and hate what some of them do.  If I can do it, it can be 
>> done.  Jesus certainly had this attitude.
>
>Why don't Christians hate fortune tellers and psycis with the same
>ferocity as they do homosexuals.  Or, okay, hate what they do.  
>Both are considered taboo, and I don't think one was supposed to be
>worse than the other, in the Bible.  But I bet the majority of
>a fortune tellers customers are religious, and most likely
>Christian.  But Christians don't seem to care much about "psychics".

*I* don't hate homos nor do any Christians I know!  Prehaps you are confusing
our rage that our children are being taught in public school that its
acceptable behavior and we have to pay for it!

I don't know any Christians that would go to a "fortune teller" or even
read a H-scope. What I feel for homos, psychics, and atheists is the same.
Pity.  Not hatred.

But I see your method and goal.  Tell a lie long enough and people will
belive it.  (ie: Christians Hate People therefore they are in violation
of the bible)
I think the goal is rather pointless.  Christians are not going away before
the return of Jesus and we're not going to stop you from being homo, psychic
or atheist etc...  Thats not our job.


>It depends on the Bible Believer.  I've read that fundamentalists
>Christians are considerably more likely to be child abusers than
>non-churched people.

ah yes.  "spare the rod, spoil the child".  Some quack in NYC concluded that
children that never get hit for punishment turn out to be "better all around
citizens and are more successfull".  Did the 'article' say what constituted
as being "child abusers"?


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:54:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.062558.1570@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>Is it possible that the other aspects of intelligence are also
>important aspects?  Just curious.

Here are the other 'intelligences':

Linguistic - no
Musical - no
Spatial - no
Bodily kinesthetic - no
Interpersonal - maybe
Intrapersonal -yes

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: I still wouldn't worship it.
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:31:07 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


  If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it. My first reaction
would be to figure out how I might be as powerful as this god. If I knew
there was some way to turn off gravity, I would want to know how to turn 
it off. Knowing how to turn it back on again would be helpful too.
  If this god said he wanted my "soul", I would ask him what the heck is
a soul, and I'd tell him to keep his grubby hands away from mine. If this 
god said there is an afterlife and I had to choose between living in hell
or heaven for all of eternity, I'd tell him that in this afterlife I would
come and go as I pleased to where ever I pleased, and any entity that 
tried to keep me confined to only one place would get their ass kicked.
  I am not a violent person, but I am an individual. I will never submit
myself to any other entity, no matter how much more powerful they are than
me. If this god threatened my life, then I would do my best to kill god.
I am saying all of this to point out that my atheism is much deeper than
merely not believing in god. Thoughts?

                      -John David Munch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:26:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.195559.240@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.122831.21650@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>: In article <Bzw01t.7ED@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>>: >John Muehlhausen (muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>>: >> 
>>: 
>>: Trusting God means trusting that all things work together for good for those
>>: that love Him, and they happen for a reason.  I would much rather live a
>>: short life with cancer and let my increased awareness of my mortality light
>>: a fire under my butt for God  than to glide through life accomplishing
>>: nothing with eternal consequence.  God will not give someone something that
>>: is not good for them in the long run.  If a Christian is not healed of
>>: cancer, then they have it for a reason that is beneficial to them as a
>>: spiritual being, as promised in the Bible.  Paul didn't whine about his
>>: adversity, nor did Jesus himself!  In fact, they seemed to shake a fare
>>: amount of joy out of it!
>>: 
>>: 
>>: John M.
>>: 
>>: 
>>
>>	I just love these kind of rationalizations.  NOT!  Your a real piece
>>	of work John.  I have nothing against what you believe. Faith or lack
>>	thereof in religion and god is a personal thing.  But your above
>>	statement shows an * Incredible * lack of compassion and humanity!!!
>>	The statement that finally pushed me over the edge of considering
>>	myself a Christian anymore was after watching a beautiful 4 year old
>>	little girl go through the terrible torture of chemotherapy for cancer.
>>	After a long fight and spending most of her life knowing nothing but
>>	fear and pain people actually had (have) the gaul to say;
>>		"It was god's will."
>>	If this is your god and his idea of; "giving us something that's good
>>	for us in the long run."  Then you can KEEP him and all of your assinine
>>	beliefs!
>>
>>	Jeff "you really hit my hot button" West
>
>
>Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
>LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
>physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
>through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
>her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
>God?
>
>John M.
	You forget where you  are twit. Unless you can back up that statement 
with something more than an indoctrinated sense of euphoria, you have no buisiness making it.
	
	This sort of denial-of-reason is what drove me away from xianity to
begin with. Unless you are prepared to deal with the subject on a more 
reasonable start shopping for some asbestos underwear...



-- 
	|||				...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \				   No one's has. Your future is what 
    =Mysh+Krysa=			   you make it...    
							   -Emmet L. Brown-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.194045.28217@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
}In article <1992Dec28.174526.915@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}[Blood and guts deleted]
}
}>Good enough?
}
}Yes, definitely. You seemed to go into a lot of trouble for that post. Thanks
}very much. After reading all that, I suddenly look at the bible in a different way...

No trouble.  In what "different way" do you look at it?  And what does you friend
think now?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:40:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.174526.915@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
[Blood and guts deleted]

>Good enough?

Yes, definitely. You seemed to go into a lot of trouble for that post. Thanks
very much. After reading all that, I suddenly look at the bible in a different way...
--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism