HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:40:48 GMT

In <fXCBDsY@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <1if3bdINNpjp@shelley.u.washington.edu> 
>sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca> 
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>>>But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.
>>I already have knowledge of good and evil, but I have never had
>>a clear explanation what xtians mean by "eternal life", other
>>than a circular description of "being with god".  If you are
>>looking for a career in religious salesmanship, try to
>>offer items of value to prospective customers.

>Is it time to start talking about the Great Free Gift Grift again? You
>know, that great free gift with no obligations whatsoever, all you
>have to do is accept! Plus, incredible discounts on aluminum siding! And
>fresh fish! I don't know about you, but I can never get enough fish! Ah,
>just imagine the average intelligence level, but strangely half the
>people are dumber than that.

We have eternal life - Christianity says that is important as to where we spend
eternity.  As to the second paragraph - Huh?!  Are you upset that it is a free
gift, or as to the way it is presented?  Forgive the fact that I can not jump 
from 
as mentally adept as you are.  I guess I also wish that someone who disagrees 
with Christianity would find a more creative, original, and thought out 
response than an attack on the mental abilities, or lack thereof, of 
Christians.  It's great to see that some disagreements are substantive, it 
shows that people really do care about the issue.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25269 talk.religion.misc:25435
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:36:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan7.013620.5613@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>everyone wants to ride in it.  In fact, most people choose to jump out and then
>curse God for not giving them a parachute.  God's plan of salvation through
>Jesus Christ is open to EVERYONE and that means that EVERYONE can be saved.  Sad
>fact is, not everyone will be saved.  Why is that?  Because most people choose
>not to believe.  I respect that.  It is not for me to choose for someone else and
>I would not wish to impose my beliefs upon another.  I am delivering a message,
>that is all.  I'll answer questions or else refer you to someone who knows the
>answer.  I don't know it all.

  I counted to 10 before replying to this post.  It may have been
  enough. 

  Your presumptions about our "choices" show one of either profound
  ignorance or unbounded arrogance.  I did not choose to disbelieve in god.
  God has not manifested himself in my life, and given my
  intellectual makeup, I am left with no choice but to assume until
  shown conclusively otherwise that he is nonextant.  By claiming
  that my lack of salvation is the result of my own choice is to
  tell me that you know my heart and mind better than I do myself.
  Are you prepared to engage in the inevitable flame war that will
  ensue should you persist in this misguided notion?

>You can't quantify the Spirit of God or measure Him on a
>yardstick.  He is beyond human understanding, but He is real.  My life is proof
>of that.
>   Thank you for your post, Simon.
>
>God loves, Man kills.

  Your life is proof of your parents engaging in intercourse on at
  least on occassion.  Nothing more or less.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 01:58:56 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <106524@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>
>About your second point, you might be right that religious 
>people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
>important is whether these religious people are more moral 
>than if they were NOT religious themselves.  
>
>WooYoung Chung

 Well, this is interesting. So, one might predict that theists would,
on average, be more moral than non-theists. Can you (or anyone) point
to studies that would indicate this?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 10 Jan 1993 07:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Keywords: Signs

In article <2B4F373F.1620@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon):
>>God's knowing what will happen in the future means the 
>>[4D] painting is all done, fixed, like a map.
>
>What if God's observation is what fixes a given event, a la quantum
>physics?  In that case, he can be omniscient in the sense that he
>_can_ know anything he cares to know, without compromising the free
>will of individuals -- since he apparently chooses not to know their
>final fates.  (That's assuming that "God is love", and therefore not
>cruel enough to encourage people to strive for life even though he
>knows that they'll fail.)
>-- 
>Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>

I knew somebody would bring this up. If you know quantum mechanics well
enough, (I'll assume you do.) you know that in the process we call
"measurement" time can only flow only in one direction. Your supposing 

>What if God's observation is what fixes a given event, a la quantum
>physics?  

assumes that god, the omni-something being, experiences time as we do,
from past, to present and onto future. God should be able to exist in
past, present, future all at the same time, after all he is
omni-something. This "choosing to see" really means is

"until god choose to see..."
or
"once god saw..."

that is, god is bound to follow the time flow just as we do! Is that an
omnipotence?

You can assert that god can choose not to see the future of human beings,
but what is this porobability we are talking about? If really god's
"choosing to see" is something like quantum mechanics, that god doesn't
know anything about the actual outcome of his observation except
probabilities until he actually observes something. Is that omni-potent,
omni-scient? I don't think so, do you?

Opinions here are mine and mine only.
jeon
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:54:51 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

dgray@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.) writes:

> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>[Explanation deleted.]

>No, this is not the case.  David was for all practicle purposes
>trespassing.  
Though a case could be made for trespassing, it is hardly conclusive.
Who owned it the land near Carmel that David was on?  Did Nabal?
It never says that David was on Nabal's land.  The servants say in 
v.16 that they were "near" David.  Does that conclusively prove your
assertion of trespass?  I don't think so.

Even if David was trespassing, Nabal was no where near capable of
providing the sort of protection that David's army afforded him.
Their presense in the vacinity was a deterent to any would be
criminal element that would cause Nabal property loss.  Heck,
even his wife and servants thought David's request reasonable.
In this case, it would be similar to stiffing president-elect
Clinton.

>How exactly did David offer "hospitality" to Nabal on Nabal's own
>property?  

Well, I don't think you've convinced me that Nabal owned the land.
Now assuming they are out in the middle of no-man's land, David showed
Nabal's servants hospitality by protecting them from any would be
criminal elements.

>Why do you think that Nabal owed David anything?
Custom and protocol of the day said it was the right thing to do.
In today's society, we have very little that correlates to this kind
of custom.  But, today it would be kind of like watching over your 
neighbor's house while he's away on vaction hoping someday he'll repay 
you for the kindness.  (Which, if you have good neighbor's is generally
repayed.)

>Granted, there was no call to be insulting, but that was certainly Nabal's
>right.
You're right.  Read my other post.  David did over react and later
calmed down.

>Thank you, but I have read the whole chapter.  I also spent an hour
>(well, 40 minutes) listening to some idiot ramble about how insulted
>David was.  The fact is, this is very typical of alot (maybe not most)
                          ~~~~
>of christians.  Your unsolicited courtesy does not entitle you to
>other people's property, or even their thanks.

What's typical?  The 40 minutes of rambling?  :)  Anyway, I'll agree 
that in the 20th century "your unsolicited courtesy does not entitle 
you to other people's property, or even their thanks."  However, the 
custom of the day was to repay kindness with kindness and be hospitable 
to strangers.  Besides, you seem to think David was demanding all the 
man had.  This was not the case as shown in v.8, the idiom is 'give us 
what you can spare.'
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25666 talk.religion.misc:25845
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:59:26 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <930111.132039.1W0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> >czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
|> >>If they allow christians to meet, then they have to allow the other
|> >>religions to meet. If the result of the christian meeting is handing
|> >>out leaflets, then they have to allow other religions to hand out
|> >>their tracts. How many christian parents would like it when little Johnny
|> >>brings home Islamic literature from school?
|> >
|> > What's the big deal?  I (an evangelical Christian) have two different
|> > translations of the Qur'an, and a basic introduction to Islam.  There is no
|> > danger in those books...any more than there is in the Bible.  They are on
|> > my bookshelf, right next to various theology texts, bibles, etc, etc.
|> 
|> In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home tracts
|> from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the Church of Satan?
|> The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The Children of God?

I think we already know the answer to this one, from the Christian
Groups that have attempted to have Yoga lessons banned, or insisted
on having what they thought were satantic symbols removed from football
team logos.

When arguing for equal time for Christianity, Christians claim that
they wouldn't mind other relgions being represented.  In real life,
they behave somewhat differently.

jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:50:48 GMT

> Citation not important:
> (* -- Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics or something?)

No the Second Law says that a given thread will diverge from the original
topic at a speed proportional to the number of people reading/posting :-^).
 This group is living proof! >:-)

I'm sorry that I can't site the original posting, but it has disappeared
over my event horizon.

I think a better question might be "Believers: What would make you not
believe that your particular brand of theism (Xian, Islam, Hindu, etc.) is
the Truth".  It is just my opinion, but I think this might be a more
fertile area for discussion, and lead to fewer flame wars.  The question of
believe in the underlaying existence of a supreme diety is not something,
IMHO, that lends itself to logical discussion, since there is not
incontrovertable proof for or against.  The results can only be personal
attacks.

So let me pose this as a companion question.  I hope you don't mind me
jumping in on your original question Ray.  If any theist can also say what
might lead them to not believe that a supreme being actually exist, I for
one would like to know.  If not, what would could cause you to no longer
follow your current religion while still holding onto your underlaying
conviction that there is a creator entity behind the universe.


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"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 9 Jan 1993 20:25:50 GMT
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: vega.latech.edu
Keywords: oxytocin

Gregory Baumgartel writes:
>I was reading Time a couple weeks ago with the article "What does science tell
>us about God?" and in it they explained the reasons for love.  They said that
>it is, for the most part, caused by a chemical called oxytocin (or something
>similar) and works to help organisms reproduce.  However, it did not really
>explain non-romantic types of love.  I'm sure there's some psychological or
>chemical reason for them, though.
>
Oxytocin is a pituitary hormone which, in females, acts on the smooth 
muscle of the uterine walls during labor, increasing the tone of the
contractions.  It also acts on the mammary glands to stimulate the 
ejection of milk during suckling.  While it does effect the reproductive
system, I'd hardly consider it a very romantic or "loving" neurotransmitter.

I'm about a third of the way through an outstanding book by Robert Ornstein
called _The Evolution of Consciousness_.  He provides some scientific
background and justifications for evolution in general and then goes
into the specifics of the evolution of the human brain.  He goes into
some of the evolution and evolutionary purposes of emotions, but I haven't
quite gotten there yet.  I just looked ahead after reading this post, but
anything I would pull out would be out of context.  Highly recommended
book, though, if you have a mind and want to know more about it.

-- 
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
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Guide for Christians posting to a.a
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:30:11 GMT
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) says:

>Recently, there has been another wave of rabid Christians posting to this
>newsgroup who seem to find it necessary to preach the Word of God(tm)
>to us poor nonbelievers.  In the interests of cutting down the frequency
>of such posts, I decided to create this help sheet.
>
>So, with tongue held firmly in cheek, I present Version 1.0 of the
>Guide for Christians Posting to alt.atheism.   :-)  :-)  :-)
>
>The Guide is very simple.  Before posting an article or followup, scan through
>it to see if any of the phrases or concepts on the following list appear in
>your article.  If any of them do, then you can be pretty sure that we a.a'ers
>will consider your article to be "preaching", and flame you accordingly.
>You should then edit your article to remove the offending phrases.  If it
>is not possible to remove the "preachy" phrases without substantially changing
>the meaning of the article, too bad.
>
>The list:
>
>  All humans are sinners
>  Begotten Son of God
>  Faith in Christ Jesus
>  Gaining wisdom through His Spirit
>  Gift of God
>  God created us
>  God filled the great gap that was in my life.
>  God has changed my life irrevocably and for the better.
>  God is beyond human understanding, but He is real.
>  God loves us
>  God wants us to...
>  Grace of God
>  His one and only Son, Jesus Christ
>  I came to know my Lord and Saviour
>  I have felt God's presence and heard His voice.
>  I know that He exists by my experiences with Him.
>  I rely on God's strength. 
>  Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Saviour
>  Salvation
>  Put your faith/trust in God
>  Redemption of sin
>  Serving God
>  Sin is a part of our nature
>  The Bible says...
>  The one and only God
>  We can be saved
>  We can have eternal life
>  We need Jesus Christ
>  Word of God
>(end of list)
>
>One additional note: Capitalization of masculine pronouns (He, His) is 
>extremely suspect, and should only be done when absolutely necessary.
>
>a.a'ers, feel free to add phrases to this list as you wish.
>Special thanks to a recent poster (who shall remain nameless) for providing
>most of these phrases.
>
>-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
>Disclaimer: "It's a JOKE, son!"
>

	I don't know if I would flame them for ALL of the phrases used at
ANY time, but if I saw them a lot I would take  a more than likely guess
that the person using them would be an idiot.


	
-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:42:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1idjveINN58h@titan.ucc.umass.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu
(SCOTT C LOCKLIN) wrote:
> In article <martin.726049316@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
> 
> >I doubt many people associate their bible to the middle-east at all,
> >despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
> >absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
> >(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)
> 
> Hitler was an atheist. Actually, if we think of it a bit, he was the founder
> of a rather virulent form of neo-Paganism. 

Does this make sense, someone is both an atheist and a neo-Pagan?

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: People move  (was: Christian racism)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 14:35:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: All sorts around the Mediterranean.

-*----
In article <C0CBxq.KLn.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
> Are you serious?  Jesus was a Jew. ...

Unfortunately.  If he had been born Roman, we would not be
suffering the miserable religion that his disciples fashioned.  

> ... Blond pale people were restricted to the northern
> areas of Eurasia 2000 years ago.  

Not quite.  The Romans and the Hellenes before them managed to
get around quite a bit.  For the four centuries preceding the
start of Christianity, Palestine had been ruled first by the
Hellenes, during the Seleucid empire, and second by the Romans.
So there were undoubtedly some pale faces wandering around.

Then, of course, there were the Gauls.  Northern "barbarians".
The Gauls fought the Hellenes, the Gauls were hired by the
Hellenes to fight the people the Hellenes fought (mostly other
Hellenes), the Gauls fought the Romans, and the Romans conquered
the Gauls.  The Gauls did so much fighting that the most famous
statue of them from this time depicts one dying from battle
wounds in a second's arms.  After the time that the Hellenes
decided it was better to hire the Gauls to fight for them than to
constantly fight against them, the Gauls also traveled quite a
bit around the Mediterranean.  One group settled in a part of
Asia Minor that was then named, appropriately enough, Galatia.
Like all barbarian groups, many were suckers for new religions.
And hence, we have Paul's letter to them.  (Of course, most of
the Galatians were probably descended from people who lived there
before the Gauls came.  But undoubtedly some descended from the
Gauls.  It's enough to get one's gall.)

Russell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Racism
Date: 11 Jan 1993 04:54:22 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan10.222215.9733@iscsvax.uni.edu>, sperry2699@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
> ps.  You know... you could just take the "atheistic" approach to life and 
> DENY that Christians exist, or the Bible, or other Christian artwork or
> literature.. that would make your life a lot easier.  But I seriously doubt 
> that you could do that.  Have fun with your life of denial.

This betrays a very odd view of Atheism, in that you seem to
equate it with denying things for which there is physical evidence.

We know that a Christian religion exists, likewise the Bible or
artwork.    Atheism does not deny any of that.   Atheism denies 
or finds evidence lacking (take your pick) for the theology of 
christianity, not for its existence in a sociological, political
or artistic sense.

On the other hand, with their constant prattle about "real"
Christianity, and "Christian values", maybe it's the Christians
who deny their existence.

jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan