HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:23:04 GMT

In article <parsons.725587713@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>I've seen statistics that show 95% of criminals who make personal
>decisions for Jesus Christ do not return to prison.  Whereas,
>95% of those not making a profession of faith do return to prison.

Of course.  If they did return to prison, well, it must not have been a *real*
personal decision for Jesus Christ....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Bible quotes to embarrass Christians
Summary: Wanted: a list of good bible quotes to point out to fundies
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:40:14 GMT

I just read Jim Tims' post in the "Violence in the Bible?" thread that
quoted some good examples of violence in Deuteronomy.

I've gone through and highlighted those bits in my copy for future
use next time I have an argument with a fundamentalist.  I know there
are lots of other passages similarly embarrassing to most Christians,
but I don't have the time to go through and find them.

So my question is: does anyone have an ordered list of all such 
"embarrassing" passages in the bible?  It would be an indispensable aid.

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.004645.15537@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
}>: I remember someone saying (in this newsgroup) that in some part of the old
}>: (or was it new?) testament god commanded some people to kill or destroy other
}>s.
}>: Where was this exactly in the Bible?
}
}Thanks. Dammit, just a day too late (not your fault, though, I posted a bit
}late). I just had a debate with a very religious relative of mine, and one
}thing she said is that there is no God-commanded violence in it.

Guess she doesn't know the bible very well...


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Re: Judge Sends Girl To Church
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:38:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.222918.2655@b11.b11.ingr.com>, sidney@b11.b11.ingr.com (Sidney Smith) writes:
|> 
|> I was recently watching COURT TV when something very
|> disturbing happened. They were showing different
|> juvenile cases in a Texas court room, when the judge
|> ordered a little girl to go to church and ask her
|> pastor what church work she should perform for
|> punishment. The judge gave her a specific number of
|> hours of "community service" to perform at her church,
|> and told her to tell her pastor to call the judge up
|> and report the young girl's progress. I don't see
|> how the judge can call this "community service".
|> 

	Churches do community service.  Most churches have a 
special organization for community aid: feeding the homeless, donating
close, toys for poor children, etc...  If the judge could not think
of a specific community service task for the girl to do as punishment,
perhaps she thought that the pastor of the girls church would have
an appropriate task available.
	Also, community service is anything that helps some
section of the community.  Working in a church would help a significant
section of the community.  Working in a soup kitchen would help a 
different section of the community.  It is still community work, and
would be reasonable punishment for a minor.   I would imagine
that the definition of community service is work done for any
non-profit organization, which regularly uses volunteers.

Bob Huss
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:30:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec23.171535.14493@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.084332.2995@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>|> We atheists of course avoid this problem because we deny the existence
>|> of a soul or any other kind of mind/body duality.  Killing is wrong in
>|> our view not because it deprives a soul of its human body but because it
>|> deprives a sentient being of the esperience of life.  The more sentient
>|> the being, the worse the crime.  Killing an adult ape is thus worse than
>|> killing a fetus which is not yet capable of any self-awareness.  In our
>|> eyes, it is morally inconsistent to be against abortion unless one is
>|> also a vegitarian.
>
>Oh , so *that's* what we atheists believe!  :->

I concur with your implication that it is a mistake to assume that
all atheists have the same position or the same reasoning on
such questions.

>Actually, I have to disagree.  Perhaps its arrogant of me, but I'll
>pick the human over the animal any day, no matter the sentience
>level invovled.  If you had a chance to save a baby or a grown
>gorilla from an onrushing truck, which would you pick?  

I have no a priori preference, and would therefore make the decision
on other than moral grounds, unless there were other moral considerations.

>I also
>support animal research on the grounds that it saves human lives.
>Perhaps someday we won't have to do this, and we will be looked
>back upon as barbarians, but killing animals is justified to save
>lives.  Hell, one of the most natural things to do is kill an animal
>and eat it.

Here I disagree, simply because I am unable to imagine an unnatural
act, and so the notion of acts being more or less natural makes
no sense to me. I personally object to killing of any kind,
but I have no choice. I therefore treat it as an unavoidable
tragedy, in the same category as suffering, and try to choose
the best course according to the situation.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Summary: The RCC insisted on a Latin Bible only.
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.142809.25078@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:

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

Yes, but at that time it was more acceptable.  The mistake came when
the clergy insisted that Latin was somehow "better" than any other
language, and kept their Scriptures in Latin instead of translating
them into the common tongue of whatever nation they were in.

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

King James, of course, was a Protestant, not a Catholic.

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

Yes...saying Masses in English was, I think, one reason for the Church's
downfall; when they were in Latin, they were beautiful, they were
mysterious, and they were powerful.  Now every Tom, Dick and Harry can
actually understand what the priest has really been saying all these
years, and it doesn't sound so nice anymore.

-- 
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...
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God Is Unfair
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:40:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 19 Dec 92, sven  hauptfeld wrote to All:

 >>
 >> sh> Actually, I'd say that this clearly suggests that the Bible was not
 >> sh> intended to be interpreted literally.
 >>
 >> Who gets to decide which bits ARE interpreted literally?
 >>

 sh> Why any?

Well, if they didn't, they wouldn't get any bread and wine at regular intervals..:-)

But actually that's an interesting question. Let us assume that nothing in the Bible is interpreted literally. So everythiing is figurative, mere allusion.
Imagine how many NEW religions you would be able to suck up :-)

    Reality doesn't go away, even if you choose to ignore it.

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:07:05 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <schnitzi.725571303@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>Interesting!  So, in summary, the Bible calls for the death penalty 
>in these cases:
>
>o  Murder
>o  Witchcraft

etc...

>
>Comments, Xians?

This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be 
submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.

It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re^2: An open question on the A.A FAQ/Intro ...
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:59:21 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

>>    My question is:
>>
>>        Q:  For anyone (currently an atheist) who has had this experience
>>            (having spent time in prayer trying to reach God), what did it
>>            mean for you to have tried to reach God?  (In other words what
>>            were you praying for and what sort of answer were you hoping
>>            to receive?)

>Mm, that's a fair question.  Let me see what I can do.

[32 lines of 'inspirational' elaboration (no sarcasm intended) deleted]

>One day I sat in front of the chapel, mulling over my fate.  And I
>distinctly remember what happened: it was like someone had finally
>focused the slide-projector, or tuned the static out of the radio; but
>I suddenly had the singular sensation of being completely and utterly
>alone.  It had never really occurred to me before that there might not
>really be such a thing as God; atheists were always considered as
>'misguided, lost souls who had not seen the Light' in my classes.  But
>all at once everything snapped into clarity around me, and my heart
>finally admitted what my mind had been trying very hard to avoid
>seeing: that the universe is what I make of it.

>It's difficult to describe the feeling I had that day, but I do
>remember just laughing for a long time at the irony of it all.  From
>that day forward I took command of my own life, claiming praise for my
>successes and accepting blame for my failures.  God, if he exists, has
>never found reason to interfere.

Very well stated, Mr. Kendig.  I think your answer to this question ought
to go in the FAQ right after the section to which Mr. Sornson refers.
Or, at the very least, a reference should be inserted into the FAQ
at that point, and readers should be directed to a separate file with
that story in it.  I've saved your reply to just that effect--should
I email a copy to Mathew, or would that be precipitous?

And when I said above that I found your story inspirational, I put
the word in quotes merely because I felt uncomfortable using it in
referring to the story of an atheist epiphany.

I have heard many stories of how Christians (and members of other
religions) 'found their calling'--I probably listen to more Christian
TV and radio than is good for me.  (A bit is funny--more might be
dangerous--HHOS.)  This is the first time I have seen an atheist
do something similar, and I really did like it.

Oh, I'd still love to know what that Rousseau quote means....

Mitchell L. Silverman              | As Voltaire never said, "I
Student, New College of            | disagree with what you say,
the University of South Florida    | but will defend to the death
Reply-to: mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu | your right to say it."
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:38:01 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Dec29.053200.13860@engr.LaTech.edu>
mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:
>
>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.
 
I still can't figure out why he came back when the rain started- was he
truly "converted" by that "miracle"?  (If he was, why didn't the kid walking
have the same effect?)  Or, did he recognize a gold mine, and go back to
take credit for the rain, in the same old cynical fashion?  The movie
really isn't clear on just how the principal characters have changed.
 
>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.
 
I wonder if the writers may have also read "The Faith Healers" by James
Randi.  Watching the first 3/4 of the movie was just like reading that
expose of the evangelists- and many of the techniques (radios, memory
techniques, pumping audience for clues) are REAL.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 10:57:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.230321.27048@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>On my desk.
>
>Then by all means, tell us more about this study.  If you're correct,
>it's just the sort of substantiation that OUGHT to have been provided
>by this thread in the first place.

First tell me what is unclear.
I suppose you have your own sources, too?

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24619 talk.religion.misc:24798
From: charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 13:38:00 -0800
Organization: Stanford U
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: lindy.stanford.edu

In article <1hspfdINNl1o@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>
>In the story, after his last tribulation, when Job is suffering
>disease, loss of loved ones, and poverty, he curses and rebukes
>Yahweh.  Yahweh gets pissed off at Lucifer -- because Lucifer had
>fooled him or because Lucifer was correct about Job? -- and
>restores Job to health, familial love, and wealth.  Only then
>does Job once again sing his god's praise. 


Jumpin' Jehosophat!  Never read that revision of Job's history.  Job
33 seems to indicate he thought he'd been right on time in everything.
One of the compadres, Elihu, takes the mike and sez YHWH is OK.  That
goes on from chap 34 through 37.  YHWH speaks in 38 thru 41.  In 42
Job sez he wasn't thinking about things right.  Also, YHWH said he'd
gotten a bit hot over tres amigos, Eliaphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, for 
putting Job down, saying he was in the mess he was in because he was 
messed up.  Job prayed on behalf of those friends and was ultimately
restored to health, wealth and prosperity.  EOF!

>Any of these conclusions are consistent with the tale.  But the
>story does *not* support the typically Christian conclusions:
>that Lucifer was wrong (in the story, he was right), that Yahweh
>knows what will happen (in the story, he didn't), and that one
>should always be loyal to Yahweh (in the story, Job wasn't).  
>
>Russell

Seriously?

C
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:12:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec30.234815.25495@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>
>assuming of course God is a figment of my imagination.  Question: if my
>argument and viewpoint are so silly, why are you wasting your time responding
>to me?  You seem to have mistaken me for someone concerned with "Saving You".
>I don't really have an interest in convincing you there is a God.  I'm 
>interested in finding out why Atheists can be so convinced there is no God.

You'll have to either specify which atheists you are talking about
or define 'so convinced' then, because the level of conviction
varies from one atheist to another.

As for the other matter, I often respond to arguments that I
consider silly in order to point out the reasons I have for
thinking they are silly. This affords me the opportunity to
learn why my impression is mistaken, or alternatively, to
help another person improve his or her reasoning. Of course,
sometimes the outcome is less productive, but such outcomes are not
usually my goal.

>The point (and suggestion) was that the apostles fudged the story of the
>Christ and his ressurection.  We would not be talking about "Shiites dieing
>for their faith" but we'd be talking about people dieing for something
>they knew was a lie or comprimised truth.  BIG DIFFERENCE.

Nevertheless, I don't think it is so well established that people
would not die to defend a fudged story that martyrdom can be
used as proof that a story wasn't fabricated. More precisely, I
would want to see very convincing evidence that people will never
die to defend a fabricated story before I would consider such an
argument to be compelling.

>There is only one reality.  Someone is wrong (be they atheist or Christian or
>muslum).

Do you have a compelling argument that there is only one reality, or
are we meant to take the assertion on faith?

>Ah I see what you ment.  Either God is a lousy communicator or we're just
>lousey interpreters.  You're right.

I think one can go further than this. Given that God knows what sort
of interpreters we are, he must be a lousy communicator.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: Iikka's Claims
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.130502.1224@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>Yes, I do have a study, but not made by me. I did not claim it included 1000
>subjects, my observations did. And third, I have no claims to this topic,
>just questions.
>
>Ok, you know now that it exists.

How? because you say it does? I know people who say that I will go to
hell for not going to church, too. Should I believe them?

>Where did I brag abou tmy IQ??

I didn't save it, but there was a post in which you said that about 1
person in 2000 gets higher than 160 pts. You said that you bust most
tests at over 170, and your score as a child was 150+. Sounds like
bragging to me. As you were presumably not included in the study you
mentioned, it is not relevant, unless you meant to imply that your
opinion is more valid than others.

>The point was, that IQ might have a correlation, which is supported by the
>studies. Why should I brag with my IQ?

Yes, it might. that's why I am interested in seeing it. At any rate,
somebody else has posted info regarding such studies, so the point is
moot.

> __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
>/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
>\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
>   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'

-Pete (Maybe I misjudged you. Thanx for a calm, rational reply to an
       intentionally antagonistic post.)
pcrayne@halcyon.com
"Jesus built my hot rod. It's a love affair. Mainly Jesus, and my hot
rod." -Ministry
From: rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: CSC System Sciences Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <aaronk.219.725650703@county.lmt.mn.org>, aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron S. Kurland) writes...

[...]

>From The MENSA FAQ (note religious affiliation below):
> 

[...]

>  49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist,
>  9% no religion
> 

  So OK, atheists maybe are not joiners.  They didn't "join" the popular
  concept that a deity exists, they didn't join a church, and they (maybe)
  don't join MENSA.  I'm sure I qualify for membership in MENSA, but my ego 
  doesn't need it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Koehler                     |   Any illusion to these opinions being other
rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov   |   than just mine alone is just that.

 " Life is life, and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. "
                         - Blixie
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:25:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.235818.19208@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.180508.10935@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>>If the measure is flawed, then it is worse than having no measure at
>>all, because your measure is then misleading.  You seem to have a very
>>casual attitude towards these sort of things.
>
>It's not flawed, it works as it should. But it doesn't measure every aspect
>of intelligence, that's all.

Is it possible that the other aspects of intelligence are also
important aspects?  Just curious.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism