HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 11:32:34 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <5ZVHPB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> }m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> }> In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes
> }> }Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
> }> 
> }> And how do you classify that extermination of Homo s. directed by Yahweh?
> }
> }Diminished responsibility.
> 
> In that anyone who would follow guidance from Yahweh should be legally insane

It has been said that the difference between Christians and the mentally ill
is that the mentally ill often aren't convinced that the voices in their
heads are real...


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:05:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:

>Do you agree, Greg, that the God that you believe in, at one time
>prescribed the death penalty for homosexual acts?  Regardless of
>whether the law was changed later, many people were put to death
>because of what your God laid down as the law.  Would you agree
>with this statement?  I know that this is off the main point, but
>I'm curious.  I want to understand liberal Christianity, and how
>it can be justified in the face of the barbarity described in the
>bible.  Mostly I want to understand how liberal Christians can believe
>in a God who laid down a harsh, barbaric law--as a result of which
>many people were murdered--and then turn around and say that the
>actions for which those people were killed are no longer punishable.

Speaking strictly for myself (as a liberal Christian), I think the OT
has to be judged in the context of its time.  If you look at the
development of teachings over time, you can see them leading in a more
"enlightened" direction.  At the beginning of this process, God looks
a lot like a tribal war-god, and his justice is pretty rough.  It *is*
an attempt at justice I think.  In many cases you can see the rules
protecting the rights of people who would be likely to be abused.
However there are still people who are simply to be wiped out (pagans,
homosexuals).  Over time you see the prophets introducing ideas such
as not holding sins against an entire family, and you can see
attitudes towards non-Jews becoming more positive -- from trying to
wipe everybody out, Israel is seen as a "light for the Gentiles".  The
book of Jonah is a biting satire against people who still hold the old
ideas in this area.  By NT times, the "righteous Gentile" was
considered by many to be equal to a Jew.

Thus I'm saying that the early law is barbaric because that's all the
people were ready to hear.  I think there's a combination of their
mishearing what God was saying, and God "accomodating" himself by
giving rules that were an approximation of his eventual goal, adopted
to the situation of the time.  I'm not sure how I'd decide in any
given case which it was.

This kind of account is not going to satisfy many readers here,
because it raises a variant of the basic problem of suffering -- why
would God adopt a strategy of bringing people along slowly, rather
than setting things up so that everybody understood him from the
beginning?  But given that you don't see it as a problem that God acts
so as to maintain a reasonable degree of autonomy for his creation, I
don't think what you see in the OT is any particular problem.
From: paulk@engin.umich.edu (Paul J. Kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:54:17 EDT
Organization: Rarely

vandelhg@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (MCG) writes:
>	Actually Paul, the Shroud of Turin *was* in fact revealed to have been an
>early medieval fake, through such fun & exciting methods as Mass
>Spectroscopy and with equally arcane scientific equipage.  

In the reading I've done, I've come across articles which question 
and undermine all the major negative results that have been popularly
reported.  It seems to me that it's still an open question.

I would love to see the Shroud put to a test which avoids the 
questionable practices of the previous testing.

>	Now then, can we drop this Turin thing?  It's all over and done with as
>far as the RC Church is concerned.  

Well, I am a bit busy, so it could just as well be dropped.  I'd be 
happy if people would just realize that the Shroud is unlikely the
work of a 14th century painter--because no pigment has been found,
because the image is too medically accurate to be a 14th century
artist's work, and because some of the medical details are contrary 
to the established Medieval iconography.

>	Again, apologies for lack of references, but check your local
>high-powered library.  Or if you can find it, check the TV News Archive for
>ABC, CBS, NBC coverage (circa 1985 - 1990).

I guess another library search is upcoming someday.

pjk
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:24:47 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Aug12.162520.256@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
>an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
>It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
>Jackpot Winner.

Not true.  The probability of winning increases with the number of trials, 
but never reaches certainty.  Followups to rec.gambling

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  The trouble with having an open mind is that people come along and |
|  put things in it.   {attribution? I nicked it from Readers Digest} |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:16:00 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.142438.8656@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

>  Suppose that I
>was in a position to make laws, and that I made a law which said the
>speed limit shall be 55 mph and anybody who exceeds it shall be shot.
>Then I get run over by a truck.  Now Paul comes along and says that 
>since Doug has paid the price, the old speed limit, although it still
>exists, is no longer enforced.

To be precise, the analogy should stop here, IMO.

>  Paul says that since we are now living
>under Grace, the speed limit shall be 65 mph and anybody who exceeds it
>will get a speeding ticket.

I will need an explanation as to why this is analogous.

>Is it fair to say that the teachings of Paul contradict those of Doug,
>or do we sit back in awe of Paul's tricky word games, and allow that
>the teachings do not really contradict?

With the more precise (IMO) analogy, we choose the latter, though the
tricky word games are noticeably absent.

>>Christianty holds that he does not override
>>Jesus.  Jesus said that he would not change the law ("jot and tittle,"
>>as you say).  Paul says the penalties have been paid.  The law remains
>>unchanged.

>Alright, let me make sure that I've got this straight.  First, we have
>Jesus, the great moral teacher, the Son of God, whose teachings all
>Christians claim to follow.  Jesus teaches on a number of occasions that
>he has no intention of changing the Law.  Seems pretty straightforward to
>me.

This leaves out much that Jesus taught about the law, but it is
acceptable for our purposes.

>Then Paul comes along and cooks up some story about penalties being paid,
>and that the Law is irrelevant -- Grace is where the action is now.  Of
>this, Jesus never mentioned a peep.  I suppose I can accept that this is
>Christianity, but I think then that it may be stretching the truth quite
>a bit for Christians to claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus.

As we have been unable to precisely define Christianity, this
observation is not surprising.  I think that a definition of
Christianity, if we could find one, would include something about
Paul's words having a certain authority due to his status as an
apostle.

>>The question is, Does Christianity still prescribe the
>>penalties associated with the law?  Because Christianity holds that
>>all penalties have been paid, I think the answer is "No."

>I think the answer has disappeared in a blur.  I think the answer is
>whatever our priest says it is, and can change daily depending on the
>aspirations of our priest.

(Point of information: Many Christians don't have a priest.)

I glean from this that you might agree that it is very difficult to
make accurate generalizations about Christianity, beyond certain
basics.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:06:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug14.003949.17679@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.131651.23594@athena.mit.edu> tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.064150.21173@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>
>>>There are not many alcoholics in the countries populated by Muslims
>>>compared to western countries, not because alcohol is banned
>>>(like in Iran as or Saudi Arabia).  In fact alcohol is abundunt
>>>in most of these countries: it is sold in daylight in the stores.
>
>	But if the majority of Muslims are teetotalers, then how do
>these stores stay in business???
>

Most of these places do not sell just alcohol and they do have their
customers.  In addition the western tourists are customers.

>>>Just go to any "Muslim" country and check for yourself.  For Saudi
>>>Arabia, it is abundant for those who want to get it. 
>
>	What???
>
>	Then how in Hades do they escape the "religious police" there?
>Lots of bribes???
>

Bribes, black market, yes.  But alcohol is much less available than
in the west.

>
>>>Also prohibition of alcohol came in different steps until the
>>>final order.  You can read about all this if you wish.  So it is
>
>	There is no such prohibition in those that Mohammed claimed as
>predecessors -- the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, Jesus Christ not
>only drank wine, he allegedly turned water into wine.
>

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant in the Qur'an prohibition
of alcohol came in 3 or 4 steps.  First it ordered the people not to
approach prayers, then it said that there is some good in wine, but
its negative parts outweighs the good.  Then the final clear-cut order
for prohibition was reveiled.  I was not talking about prior revelations
to the Qur'an.

>>>not the banning from fellow man that will make people stop
>>>drinking.  It happens when the order comes from the creator of men.
>
>	Then why didn't this so-successful lawgiver outlaw war?
>

Because there are always people who make agression and atrocities,
and these people must be stopped and justice has to be done.


Ridha
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 07:03:17 GMT


	But I must say to, I was dissapointed. I was hoping for 
some new argument or angle to be presented. It just hit me as I 
send off my last post that YOU CANNOT SEE SUB/ATOMIC PARTICLES
WITH EVEN "GREATLY MAGNIFIED VISION"  !!!! As far I as know, the
only way I know it to be even remotely possible is by electron 
mircroscope !!!!!

	HMMMMM Better put on the old hip boots....

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Does God EXIST ?!
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.171412.16325@ccs.QueensU.CA>, 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis) writes:

> Suggested Reading
> The Messianic Legacy, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
> Testament, by John Romer

Your critique of the World Wide Crutch of God propaganda was excellent 
Colleen, and I too would recommend Romer's book, but do you really think the
'Messianic Legacy' is worthwhile? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't 
Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln the guys who claim that Jesus died at Masada, that
Mary Magdalene was his wife, that she went to Gaul, that their son founded
the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings, who in turn became the Cathar
heretics, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians and are
currently calling themselves the Priory of Sion? Don't they believe that
these guys are going to stage a coup and take over France and rule the world
or some such similar bullshit? Considering that the original posters are
members of H.W. Armstrong's church, don't you think they believe enough
demonstrable crap as it is? Baigent & Co. are to history what Von Daniken
was to archaeology.
Tim O'Neill 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Summary: The REAL test of divine power
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:21:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.172701.22284@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.204444.22864@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>
>>I'll have my God arrange for Mr. Bush to slaughter a bunch of
>>followers of your God pretty soon (before November).  Then you shall know
>>that my God is the one true god.  And my God is merciful, wise.
>
>My God will make Mr. Bush die one day, and you shall die too.

Can your god die, Ridha?  MINE did.

-- 
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, the operating system has been overthrown
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Time to start secular scouts
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:06:16 GMT

Whenever the scouting issue is brought up they (BSA supporters) always
respond by saying that we should start our own. So why not do it? If its
better than the boyscouts it will win out in the long run. 

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Party...
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: alt
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:40:49 GMT

cosc16tt@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.) writes:

>evils.  I don't feel that personal freedoms are safe by casting a vote
>for Bush, and yet, Clinton's economic policy (which I would ask you
>not discuss here) scares the daylights out of me.  Which
>leaves......... yeah...  not alot.  I can throw my vote away voting
>for perhaps a libertarian, or just not bother to throw it at all.  At
>this juncture I would opt for the latter were it not for congressional
>elections (I am there voting I might as well punch something for the
>presidential post).  So, what do you guys think?

  Although I am not a citizen (and can't vote), I discuss this
dilemma with my roommate, who shares your same concerns (as do I).
His solution is an interesting one:  he's going to vote for 
Clinton.  The reasoning is that Clinton is likely going to
be fairly ineffectual as a president, and will not do TOO much
damage to the economy in his four years.  Most importantly, 
the blame for the economy will be placed at the feet of 
the Democratic "socialist" policy, rather than at the (nominally)
capitalistic policies of the Republicans.
  By 1996, Bush will be long gone, and hopefully one of the more
moderate western U.S. republicans (maybe Pete Wilson), who won't
be blackmailed by the religious right, will landslide for
the presidency.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Summary: I don't beleive it would be possible for the biblical God to convince!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: christian convince proof God atheists
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:49:00 GMT

In article <ednclark.714378813@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes...
}To start I'm an atheist and probably a mild agnostic (i.e. I beleive New
}York exists though I've never been there).  But I challenge any one of my
}atheist chums to tell me how the Judeo-Christian Biblical God (whichever
}one) could prove he was who he said he was? I don't think he could do it 
}(beyond tampering with our minds so that we all became fundies!)!

If you mean 'proof' in the mathematical or logical sense, he couldn't. No
matter what he did to show his omni-<take-your-pick>, he could just be
a super powerful alien (like Q in ST:TNG). There would possibly be a point
at which he might convince me... but I'm not really sure what he could do/say
to do that.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
From: lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beethoven GOD??? Hardly..(was Re: For all you believers)
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:04:16 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
> EVERYONE knows that the one true
>god is Richard Strauss...Just listen to Til Euilenspegiel backwards at 78
>speed, and the message is quite clear...

Ahem, since R.S. composed _Also sprach Zarathustra_ with inspiration from
Nietzsche's outrageously wonderful book of the same name, I'd say R.S.
was an atheist. Surely God cannot be atheistic, that would be an extreme
lack of self-confidence, wouldn't it?

>For your blasphamy, your soul shall, at the time of your death, be sentenced to
>listen to the soundtrack of "Saturday Night Fever" for eternity!
Backwards, I hope. Anything else would be too hard a punishment!
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen            ! "Was der Poebel ohne Gruende einst glauben
lhp@daimi.aau.dk - Inf.&Media Sci. ! lernte, wer koennte ihm durch Gruende
Aarhus University, DENMARK         ! Das -- umwerfen?" -Nietzsche
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:09:07 GMT

	Bible translations?  Revised Standard Version
			     New American Standard
			     New International Version

	These are just a few of the popular versions.  However, when
	reading be sure not to take a verse or chapter or book as
	sufficient in and of itself.  Everything is woven together.

	Enjoy ;)

	DeWayne

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:19:34 GMT

davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:

>:If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>:longer under the law, but under grace."  Also, Christianity holds that
>:Jesus Christ payed all penalties for moral wrongs with his death.

>But the people who were executed for homosexual acts, per orders of
>the God Christians believe in, had to pay the ultimate price for their
>moral "wrongs."

Yes, those who came before Jesus did this.  I should qualify "all" in
the above, since I don't know how or if Jesus death applies to sins
that preceeded him.

>:This happened before Christianity even existed.  From these I conclude
>:that Christianity does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual
>:acts.

>Do you mean that it does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals
>acts, *if* this punishment is administered out by humans?

In a sense this is what I mean.  When we talk about the death penalty,
I think of something administered by humans to other humans.

>  In and of itself,
>the death penalty for homosexuals is just?

I cannot speak to this.

>  Further, why do Christians
>consider it allowable for OT followers to execute homoseuxals, while
>modern Christians are prohibited from doing this?

The old covenant has been upgraded to the new covenant.  This example
is one if the reasons I think the new covenant is an improvement.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Summary: I don't beleive it would be possible for the biblical God to convince!
Keywords: christian convince proof God atheists
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:33:33 GMT

To start I'm an atheist and probably a mild agnostic (i.e. I beleive New
York exists though I've never been there).  But I challenge any one of my
atheist chums to tell me how the Judeo-Christian Biblical God (whichever
one) could prove he was who he said he was? I don't think he could do it 
(beyond tampering with our minds so that we all became fundies!)!
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:00:58
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: safecrac@west.darkside.com's message of 20 Aug 92 07:48:14 GMT

In article <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:

   Jesus Saves

...Robert grabs the rebound, fires an outlet to Larry, he stops, he
pops, and it's good for THREE!

(never more will we see this, but at least Robert and Kevin are still
around.)
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15499 soc.motss:36159 sci.physics:13194 talk.religion.newage:3897 alt.pagan:8136 talk.religion.misc:14380