HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 04:33:04 GMT


I recently posted this to alt.atheism and thought this group might be
interested (and no I am not a Bible-thumper on alt.atheism... :-)

>I would like to say that an athiest cannot prove by any method that
>there is no God, so he is agnostic (looking for the truth).  The atheist then
>says "Well then there can be no religion but agnosticism, because no religion
>can _prove_ their claims".  Wrong.  No religion can prove their claims with
>the atheist's tools - logic, reason, science, etc.  However I do not doubt
>that many (if not most) religious people would say that they are convinced
>100% of their religion and that to them it is proven true, which it is.  The
>fact that they have emotion and respect for intuition and feeling in their
>toolbox does not make it any less proof _for them_.  So then the atheist says
>"I have those things too".  Well that may be but in order to use them in
>defense of atheism you would be resorting to the tactics of any common
>religion!  In using these things the atheist has undermined the basis of
>athiesm, and yet it is not possible to hold to atheism without them - rather
>the person would be agnostic...
>
>Guess what?!?  All you atheists do not exist!  You are agnostic, so face it.
>:-) :-) :-)  (You must admit that was clever of me! - and probably even true!)
 
 
John M.
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:12:21 GMT
	<1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up
>about God (traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion
>which was communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.

Demonstrate to me that the Christian religion is not merely something
that a group of men dreamed up.
--
As to Jesus of Nazareth.... I think the system of Morals and his religion, as
he left them to us, the best the world has saw or is likely to see; but I
apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of
the dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity.  -- Ben Franklin
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:59:52 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.113912.26475@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>You mean you don't _know_?
>>	Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
>>	better that you go and see with your own eyes. 

>Go ahead, tell me, even if I _don't_ believe.  I just want to find out what
>_you_ believe about it.

	Religion that is not Biblical is false. Isaiah 43:10 says "You are my
	witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah". If you are not a Jehovah's
	witness, your religion is not biblical. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.113257.26239@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Jesus explained that a false tree grows false fruits and a right tree
>	grows right fruits. 

That must mean that since so many JWs have fallen into immorality and been 
disfellowshipped for it, the JWs are a false tree?  And that since Mother 
Theresa is a product of a Catholic upbringing, the Catholic Church is a right tree? 

Is it really that simple?  :-)  <- for the humor impaired...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:52:56 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.145521.26368@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>>>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>>>>>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  ...
>>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>>>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
>>	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
>>	why I don't list them.

>So name some of them.  Name ten or so, if you don't want to bother naming
>thousands.

	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Save the Earth != The Earth is your Mother
Summary: save the earth for it self, not for religious reasons
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:55:18 GMT

Three was a post here 'last week' which I didn't save (I got
the one AFTER it) in which  person A: decrided as heresy
the current 'Save the Earth' Movement, and Person B did
jump ne their case for not caring about the planet.  I did
think at the time that there was a mis identification of 
content; to wit:

As christians we are called to be responsible stewards of
the place, for the Lord and Master is coming back and will
demand an accounting.  ('Uhh, well, you see there was this
car .... "). {If you want chapter and verse consult your
concordance.}
	What motivates a portion of the "Save the Earth" 
movement - as rcorded on bumper stickers, etc, is the
return of Earth Goddess Worship. _THIS_ is not acceptable
in christian practice (qv Commandment 1: you (familiar) are
going to have ONLY one entity that will serve as the focus
of your relisious devotion, you hear?) and I will join with
the other "True Believers" in rejecting.
	To get back t the subject: saving the earth is not 
the quibble, the elevation ofthe Earth to being an object
of worship is straght off.  Sorry if that breaks your bubble
but that is the way, the truth and the party line.
	As a christian I am concerned with *all* of the Good
Lord's creation, if for the selfish reasone that I want my children
to have something to exploit.  I am not going to extend 
respect for God's creation to worship of God's creation,
for that is idolatry.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.145952.26475@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes...
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Apr10.113912.26475@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>>You mean you don't _know_?
>>>	Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
>>>	better that you go and see with your own eyes. 
> 
>>Go ahead, tell me, even if I _don't_ believe.  I just want to find out what
>>_you_ believe about it.
> 
>	Religion that is not Biblical is false. Isaiah 43:10 says "You are my
>	witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah". If you are not a Jehovah's
>	witness, your religion is not biblical. 
>-- 
> 
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Well, that wasn't so hard.  Only about 6 go arounds to get Andreas to finally
come out and say that if you are not a Jehovah's witness that your religion
teaches your children to lie, steal, rape, loot, and terrorize.

It's funny, I must have missed this when I was going to sunday school at my
methodist church when I was growing up.  And... I never really thought of 
those bhuddists as lieing, stealing, raping, looting types but I will certainly
be on my guard in the future!  Heaven help me if I should come across a
follower of Allah in class!  I shall run for the door in fear for my very 
life because I know she was taught from childhood to lie, rape, steal, etc. me!

I can see why you were so hesitant to just come out and say it, Andreas.  It
really seems quite loony to me.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The "After-life"
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:10:17 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: The "After-life"
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr8.094126.4027@verifone.com} ed_l1@verifone.com writes:
}Well, since everyone else is putting in their two cents about what the
}afterlife is (and some being so adament about it - and not allowing
}for the beliefs of others), I guess I might as well too.
}

[description of the afterlife deleted]

}
}-- 
}===========================================================================
}|| Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A. Earth ||
}||   Anthropologist, Writer, Editor    -*-     IN%"Ed_L1@VeriFone.Com"   ||
}||   Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance.  All Rights Reserved    ||
}===========================================================================
}
}Press RETURN for more...
}

So, what about HELL.  What's it like?  I'm more interested in this because
many of my religious friends tell me that I'm going there.
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"JUST a statue!  Is the Statue of Liberty JUST a statue?  Is the Leaning Tower
of 'pizza' JUST a statue?"
                -- Homer to Bart in _Tell-Tale_Head_ (Homer pronounced it as
                    'pizza' not 'Pisa')
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 10:46:05 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
 <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> <54205@hydra.gatech.EDU>

In article <54205@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
says:
>
>In article <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>>Jesus spent a lot of time doing miracles in order to justify the faith
>>of his disciples. He even needed to do this after his resurrection.
>
>Jesus, as recorded in Acts, gave many convincing proofs that he was alive,
>after the resurrection.   If it is proven, why do you need to keep proving it?

Hasn't been proven to me, and I can't prove it to myself, like I could with
other beliefs I hold, like, say, science. I'm not going to just believe
with no proof and no way of getting any, and that's what you offer.

>
>What Jesus did - he did once and for all.  After he finished his work,
>he sat down at God's right hand.  He did with his body, what nothing else
>could do - he opened the door to God through the forgiveness of sins.
>(Hebrews)

Oh joy. As if we accept the sacrifice of an innocent man to atone for someone
else's "crimes."

>
>Jesus doesn't have to keep offering himself as an offering for our sins,
>for he did it once and for all.
>
>We preach Christ crucified - not signs and not worldly wisdom. (I Cor. 1)

Jesus doesn't have to keep getting crucified, but he does have to keep proving
the fact. Unjustified belief, like what you offer, is illogical.
And about preaching--why continue rubbing it in? Does Jesus enjoy being
reminded of how he was nailed to a cross?

>
>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>--
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |
>Atlanta, GA                --|--
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

Nice drawing. Did you ever hear why Jesus can't eat M&M's...

Martin Schulte
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:02:49 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr9.203348.11660@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>I am not rating sins, and I never said homosexuality was a worse _sin_ than
>any other (in fact I said the opposite).  I _did_ say that homosexuality has
>more negative consequences than many sins, the biggest of which is a focus on
>being gay rather than on serving God.

>But can you honestly say that being gay won't keep you from living the
>way God wants you to live?

The trouble with this kind of thing is that it is all theoretical--you
are talking about something you know nothing about as if you really
did know something. That's the trouble with judging--you keep getting
it wrong!

I've had a lot of experience living a celibate life as a homosexual,
and I've learned a few things. If you are merely celibate in a way
which attempts to forget about your sexuality and are attempting to
treat yourself as an asexual being, then you can have problems.  You
are suppressing something in yourself, which has an element of fear in
it, and a sense that something in you isn't right. This *doesn't work*
in the spiritual life. In order even to be celibate in a healthy way,
you have to do just what you said you shouldn't do--namely, focus on
being gay. Unless you realize that being gay is OK, your celibacy is
*not* OK.

As someone living a celibate life, it sounds to me like you are
falling into some typical pitfalls of overemphasis on the importance
of sex. If the only effect your celibacy has on you is to tend to make
you think you are better than other people, then I have to suggest you
should knock it off and get married.

I am not now sleeping with anyone. The idea that I might at some
future time have another love relationship is not attended with any
guilt or anxiety about what God or the neighbors might think. And that
is how it should be.



--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:41:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.010723.5084@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.163436.1957@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> 
> >One joins a particular denomination for a
> >reason, presumably because one thinks the truth is to be had there,
> >rather than elsewhere.
> 
> You presume wrong.  That is one of the last reasons that a person
> joins a particular denomination.  But once a person joins, he must 
> defend the truth of his denomination at all costs.  That is why
> "religious toleration" is an oxymoron.

I certainly agree that one must defend their denomination at all
costs, because one has bought into the denomination, and in many
cases have attached their identity to it. So, in trying to defend
their identity or ego, they must defend their denomination.
I very rarely believe people who defend their denom or system of
religion for this very reason.

barry--
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:49:56 GMT
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University

>> The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
>> because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."
>
>Here is where the judgement comes in.  It is _your_ belief that "The
>[Christian] Bible is relevant to all".  Not all people believe that.  That
>makes it a judgement.


That the Bible is relevant to all is from the Bible- not from me.

People will sometimes refuse to belive simply because it forces them
to give up an activity. This does not, however, apply to all persons.


Chris
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for Sheep (was: Re: MORMONISM ??????)
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:09:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: pages.1992Apr14.010956.1427
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Apr13.124155.8758@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter  
Smith) writes:
> >vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> >>I've never interacted with a missionary who would discuss anything at
> >>any depth.  They've been ordered not to engage in arguments and told
> >>that the best way to do this is to avoid disagreement.  They'll nod
> >>politely and then disregard everything you've just said.
> 
> In article <1992Apr12.143052.26998@hellgate.utah.edu>  
jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> >This is true -- the missionaries aren't apologists.  It is their duty
> >to explain the LDS position, not to defend it.  As such, they focus
> >their efforts on those who don't necessarily wish to debate, but
> >simply to understand.
> 
> I've heard similar reasoning from members of other proselyzing denominations.
> I'm not saying this is the case with Mormon missionaries (my only experience
> with them is a few minutes in a laundromat one morning), but the underlying
> idea seems to be, those who listen and don't "debate" are more likely to
> be successfully recruited into the group, while those who debate are
> unlikely to be 'convertable'.
> 
> [lots more stuff deleted]

Quite a detailed analysis, considering based on "a few minutes" and Jay's  
comment. The use of the emotionally-ladened term "sheep" is nice, too, though a  
lot of Christians might have to pause and remember the Savior's comments about  
His sheep knowing His voice. :-) 

Seriously, you do misunderstand the point (and the approach) completely. The  
task of LDS missionaries is to present their message, then invite the people  
being taught to decide (through their own study, prayer, and experience)  
whether or not what was presented is true. This is done to avoid "Bible  
bashing" and the various other forms of contention which seem to arise so  
readily when religious issues are presented (note, for example, the general  
tone of most of the discussions here and in soc.relgion.christian). The  
responsibility for conversion lies with the hearer--a far better approach, I'd  
say, than one where passion, rhetoric, and fear lead one to an avowed  
conversion which seldom lasts. ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
Director, BRI
bwebster@pages.com
#import <pages/disclaimer.h>
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:50:59 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

In article <1992Apr8.210212.7990@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>I think the homosexual who substitutes homosexuality for God (or anyone for
>whom sex is their god - quite a few people) is a victim.

Has anyone said a word about deifying sex? Regardless, if none of those
directly involved feel that they are victims, if all interested parties are
consenting, then there are no victims. Your opinion is moot.

>Lets assume that
>homosexuality is still not accepted _at all_ instead of just a little in the
>right circles.  Then someone who was homosexual would either go insane from
>frustration or read Pauls letters and decide that they are called to be as
>Paul was - single, of the Spirit and not the flesh, and devoted to spreading
>God's word.  An acceptance of homosexuality allows them to go on worshipping
>this god (as with food or money).

So, stepping up the oppression will bring the oppressed around to see
the error of their ways, eh? Paul's letters'll be the first things they
go for? Amazing. It's guys like you who are always the first to die at
the end of a revolutionary's bayonet, cursing him for his ingratitude, even.

>As with anything though, yanking
>homosexuality out from under someone is disastrous unless you present the
>godly (and beneficial) alternative.

How do you plan to realize this beneficial yanking? Right off, I can think of
another form of yanking that would work wonders for someone like yourself.
Show me someone who rants against sex-as-deity and I'll show you a repressed
prude.

>God is not about the negative - rather the positive.

Oh, I can see that. So many of his dutiful servants just *exude* benevolence.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc