HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, California, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:46:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220911.11369@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes: >
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>
>>
>>>If you want more, why don't you just ask?
>>
>>Oops.  Yes, I meant to conclude with a request for pointers to the
>>further evidence.  I'll add that now: Ms. Hausman, please share with
>>us the scads of evidence of Fundamentalist Christian child abuse or
>>murder.
>
>I must defer to David Rice for the studies.  The two pieces of
>evidence I posted were only to illustrate that Xian child abuse
>is commmon.  Both these cases occurred in Santa Clara county,
>with a population of about 1.5 million.  
>
>A recently published book, whose author and title elude me,
>but perhaps another a.a. readers can supply the evidence, gives
>copious evidence of child molestation by Catholic priests over
>the last 40 years.  I am sure you read of the case of the ex-priest
>who was also accused of attacking his baby sitter, and had molested
>dozens of boys when he was a priest.  This was in the news last
>month.

I believe the book Maddi is referring to is _Lead Us Not Into
Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children_ by
Jason Berry (a devout Catholic, for those who care). Some blurbs from
the book:

  * Between 1984 and 1992, four hundred Catholic Priests in North
    America have been reported for secually molesting children, mostly
    boys.

  * Catholic bishops and priest-leaders have covered up many of these
    cases, allowing abusive priests to evade prosecution and to
    continue their molestation of children.

  * The Catholic Church has already paid out $400 million to resolve
    abuse cases that have come to light, and could pay out $1 billion
    by century's end.

Two different sources in the book estimate the number of priests in
the U.S. Catholic Church who are potentially pedophiles or
ephebophiles (adults who sexually molest older adolescents) at 6% or
about 3,000 priests.

I don't know how this compares to the estimated national average, but
it seems awfully high to me. Especially since one doesn't normally
hold priests to the same moral standards as the laity.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: looking for God
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:17:32 GMT

In article <93006.083705BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> I have a question for those of you who are sure that there is no
> evidence that God exists.  What is the life force?  

	A convenient fiction used to denote the property many things
have of "living", including respiration, metabolism, and reproduction.
"Life" is a tricky thing to get ahold of.  Are viruses alive?  Some
say yes, some say no.  As for me, I believe my "life force" is just
biochemistry, molecules doing their schtick.

> What is that leaves that body when it dies?

	(That's more than one question, but anyway.)  I am not
convinced that anything leaves the body when it dies.  Death is just
one's biochemistry shutting down from lack of oxygen (or carbon
dioxide, if you're a plant).

> When you pick a flower what flows from it that causes it to wilt?

	Water.  (That was easy!)

> What do you use to explain our complex ecosystem which can not
> operate without the full circle of elements, i.e. soil can not produce
> vegitation without humas.

	Evolution.  Things started out simply, and became more
complex.  Soil did not always have humus, because soil did not always
have plants.  I would think the first land plants did not require
humus; such plants exist today.  (Ever see plants growing on bare
rock?)  I guess only after enough of the first plants died to make
humus did the plants requiring humus first start to flourish.  I'm not
a paleobotanist, but it's not hard to imagine how it could have
happened without "divine intervention".

> It seems to me that most of those writing on this list are blindly
> posting their rhetoric without really listening or considering what
> the others are saying.  There are some exceptions, and I guess they
> are what keep me reading.

	Welcome to the Net. :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                       The more you know, the less you believe.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25090 talk.religion.misc:25258
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:35:21 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1idjveINN58h@titan.ucc.umass.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
|> 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.

References?    He himself claimed to be a Roman Catholic in
good standing.

He also claimed to be doing "The Lord's Work" in Mein Kapf.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:46:01 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:44:00 GMT
>FROM:   Stephen Tice <b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu>
>
>In article <1993Jan8.091014.26416@walter.cray.com>, 
>jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes...
>
>>Please stop crossposting to alt.atheism.  I'm getting real tired of wasting
>>my time reading all the preaching here lately.
>> 
>>Thank You,
>>  Jeff West
>
>Well Jeff. All as you wish. I wouldn't have known the thread posting
>was narrowed down to alt.atheism if I hadn't moved over here tonite
>from alt.conspiracy. Since you've(?) taken care of the cross posting 
>problem, that's easy.
>
>I'm curious though. As an atheist... (are you an atheist?) why
>did you bother reading any "preaching." Sincerely. I got curious
>about "atheist," so I figured I'd drop in for a while to see who
>was over here. 


NICE TRY JEFF, BUT SOMETIMES THE SUBTLE WAY AIN'T THE EFFECTIVE WAY.

SO FOR STEPHENS BENEFIT I WILL EXPLAIN:

WHEN PEOPLE CROSS POST PREACHING INTO ALT.ATHEISM AND WE TRY TO GET IT
OUT, ONE OF OUR FINAL RESORTS IS TO RE-POST THE NEWS INTO ALL THE OTHER
NEWSGROUPS AND POST INTO ALT.ATHEISM SEPARATELY TO LET THE THING DIE A
NATURAL DEATH.  IN OTHER WORDS, IF NO ATHEISTS READ AND RESPOND, IT WILL
JUST GO AWAY.  IF THEY DO READ AND RESPOND, THEN THERE IS AN INTEREST FROM
READERS IN ALT.ATHEISM AND WE WERE WRONG THAT IT WAS OF NO INTEREST.  A
SORT OF LAB EXPERIMENT, IF YOU WILL.  ATHEISTS ARE SILLY THAT WAY!

IT IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR PREACHERS TO HUNT US DOWN IN ALT.ATHEISM AND
PREACH TO US HERE.

ONE GOOD WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT ATHEISTS ARE ABOUT AND WHAT ALT.ATHEISM IS
ABOUT IS TO READ THE FAQ'S IN ALT.ATHEISM.MODERATED.  THEY ARE FAIRLY 
WELL WRITTEN AND DO HELP SET SOME GROUND RULES SINCE WE ARE IN WHAT IS
CONSIDERED A "CONTROVERSIAL" NEWSGROUP WHERE PEOPLE LIKE TO COME CHARGING
IN TO GET A FEW BROWNIE POINTS FOR THE HEREAFTER.

READ THE FAQS AND GET BACK WITH US.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:14:30 GMT

Well, gee, isn't that special.  Especially coming from Mr. Marcus,
who promised us all kinds of documentation he still hasn't bothered
to deliver on.

What is it with you, James?  Do you really think that you can
make outragious claims about Satanic child abuse and that we
won't forget you don't back them up?

Post on our board, and we'll dog your heels until you either
produce proof or apologize for your slanderous falsehoods.

* There is no evidence of Satanic child abuse or ritual murder

* There are scads of evidence of Fundamentalist Christian child
  abuse or murder

Evidence: Blomquist family in Campbell California starved their
          son because he wouldn't mind them.  Son had undiagnozed
          illness (father didn't believe he was sick, just evil)
          and was close to starvation.  Mother is out on bail,
          last I heard dad is still in jail.

          2 pastors at Jubilee Christian Center, the largest
          church in Santa Clara County, have been arrested on
          charges of molesting boys they met through their
          youth ministry work.

These 2 stories hit in the last 4 months in MY CITY!  They are
easily verified.  You, however, have no evidence and hope we'll
ignore you if you promise it "later."  Put up or apologize,
James.  You have ZERO credibility.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25092 talk.religion.misc:25259 alt.pagan:15001
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:10:47 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <1993Jan12.013219.26785@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>In article <t#f=Nj=@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

[huge, slash-and-burn deletion]

>|>  According to the specs, God never does and would never do evil. Ergo, God
>|> does not have free will.

>God will do no evil because it is contrary to His nature.

 Interesting... Now, the simple, $64,000 question, right here:

>|>  If you say that God *does* have free will, the question becomes: Then why
>|> not make humans with this delightful property of simultaneously having free
>|> will and never doing evil?
>Sin is very much a part of our nature.  We commit it freely and sometimes, quite
>unknowingly.

 Then WHY NOT MAKE US WITH THE SAME NATURE AS GOD? This is the point I'm
getting at. It *is* possible to have free will and never do evil. *God*
does it. God is also omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and so both could
and would make others with this nature.
 Why didn't It?

[another deletion]

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25475 talk.religion.misc:25638
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:05:51 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <11646@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>Followups directed away from alt.pagan
>
>In article <2B4B7612.22310@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>Nope, no more than disallowing prayer in state-funded schools is
>>censorship.  Again, religion is distinct from other things in this
>>instance, precisely because the constitution treats it as such --
>>REQUIRING that it be distinct from the state and state-funded stuff.
>
>It depends on what you mean.  Disallowing a group of Christians from meeting
>on public school property after hours when there is a general policy of 
>allowing students to meet for whatever reason would be censorship, IMO.  Well,
>not exactly censorship, but certainly violation of 1st amendment rights.
>
>-EMP

I agree, providing that was all they were doing. But the current fundies
feel (I never could understand why) that they have to proselyte and
convert. If they use this after school meeting as a base for spreading
the word through the school, then it would be another matter completely.

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?

Chris Lee
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25396 talk.religion.misc:25566
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan8.050042.6458@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes...
>In article <C0I3v7.82E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>>Then why didn't he create only those who would
>>eventually "choose" to worship him with their Free Will?  

>If he created only those who would choose to be with him, those people would
>not have a choice. 

Mikel Evins beat me to the punch on this reply.  However, I'll still put my
spin on it:

You miss my point.  An omnipotent, omniscient god would be able to create a
mental "roster" of those who would and who wouldn't be with him even *before*
creating the universe.  Why even bother with the unbelievers, then?  The ones
who choose would still have free will.  Besides, the larger question of god's
providing us with minimal evidence of his own existence still hangs over the
debate.  

>>Besides, if our souls do lie in the balance, why doesn't he 
>>simply appeal to our senses?  Instead, this God sounds more like a child 
>>rapping the glass of an ant farm to see which way they scurry.

>This is not a cruel test at all. God told us what we are expected to do,
>if we wished to be with Him; to do anything more would be to revoke our
>free will. If He appealed to our senses, you would be intimidated by
>Him and would no longer be able to choose freely. 

Again, you miss my point.  God told us what we are expected to do through an
old book that to potential unbelievers is undistinguishable from other dusty
old religious books.  It is simply unfair to make oneself scarce and then make
the Biggest Test of All Eternity hang in the balance. 

Imagine a neighborhood where an old man lives in what looks like an abandoned
old house.  This man shows absolutely no evidence that he even lives there; he
leaves his lights off and never leaves the house. Thus, the other neighbors
treat the house as if it doesn't have any tenants, and go on with their lives,
having block parties and the like. Meanwhile, the old man seethes, feeling that
the other people have ignored him.  Finally he snaps and goes on a murderous
spree, killing all the neighbors.  When the police ask for the reason, he says
"all I wanted was a relationship with them."  Hey, I'd jail him. 

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The whole topic
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:17:35 GMT
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) says:

>Hi, folks!
>
>First time in this ng, so 'scuse me if i repeat thoroughly trammeled
>ground.
>
>I've just been looking through some posts, here, and have a few comments.
>First: (Agnostic) vs (Atheist).  I am an agnostic (I question the existence
>of 'ag's), not an atheist.  Atheism is a religion in itself, claiming, like
>all the rest, that you _know_ the answer to the Big Question; ie, no, there
>is no God.  I would die of shock if any of the major religions turned out
>to be true, but then anything is possible.
>
>Second:
>
>

	Look in the dictionary, there you will find what a RELIGION is
and what ATHEISM is. RELIGIONS (mostly) profess the beleif in the super-
natural, atheism in general sees beleif in the supernatural unfounded 
(IE: holding no beleifs in ghosts, gods, spirits, demons, angels and the such)

	What makes a religion a religion is the beleif in the supernatural, 
NOT anything that deals with certain "philisophical" questions. Go ahead, 
take a look at the dictionary and the FAQ, that way you would already know 
what a lot of think on this matter.

-- 
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-------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25054 talk.religion.misc:25224 alt.pagan:14985
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:15:59 GMT

In article <C0EGor.HGK@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson) writes:
>>>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>>
>their father if they don't shut up.
>
>>>>How the hell am I supposed 
>>>>to gain enlightenment if I can't understand what the hell is being
>>>>said?
>
>Who said you were? You shouldn't even want to, pesky peasant! This was
>a time when "meak" was a compliment for common people.
>
>>In article <C0B6oF.JC9.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>[about the beauty of some languages]

Actually I wrote this.

>>I, too, think that Latin is quite melodious and rolling, but I still
>>want to understand what's going on when I'm hearing about something that
>>pertains to my daily life, or purports to.  Not doing dso makes it seem
>>like spiritual spoonfeeding; I want to be a participant and contributor,
>>damn it!  
>
>But you are a twentieth century woman. You have been brought up to
>think that what you think matters, and that the more knowledge you
>gain, the better. It hasn't always been like that. And we haven't seen

Well, then, bemoaning the downfall of the church by using vernacular is
kind of dumb, which is where this discussion started.  If times change
to the point where a 20th century woman isn't feeling included, the
church either changes or dies out.  The catholic church has no business
aiming their ceremonies at 16th century peasants nowadays.   

Blessings,
Janis 

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25632 talk.religion.misc:25800
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:22:43 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>I've been following this thread from quite a while now, and I still
>haven't learnt who, according to you, made up the laws according to
>which (1) the nature of Adam and Eve was such that they would ignore
>the prohibition, 

Not quite correct.  They were made with the potential to keep the
prohibition; which also means there was a chance they would break it.
This deserves slightly more attention, but I don't have time to give
it right now (nor would you really care to hear, more than likely).

>(2) their transgression would be punishable by death
>and (3) their descendants would have to bear the consequences as well.
>Who was it that decided that all of this should be so? ... 

The short answer:  God.  Yes, it was God who made the rules and set the
penalties.  Again, this deserves a little more attention but don't have 
time right now.

[Deletions.]
>>but Jesus Christ is the only truly begotten Son of God (note the capitals).

><sigh>  Once more.  Why is he the only one?  Why couldn't your god
>have truly begotten as many Sons as he liked?

Sigh.  Read Romans 5:18-19 and 6:10.  Actually read all of Romans 5 & 6.  
God only needed one Son.  He didn't need two or three--just one, thank you.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:55:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <C0CDAF.LKF.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>
>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism?  

When dealing with fundies who try to convert one to their veiw, yes it is
sufficient.

>	However, I think maybe by looking at each religion, it's origins, 
>and it's errors, that we can see that the errors are due to the
>nature of the society in which the religion grew.  Most of the errors or

Sounds reasonable.

>discrepencies in the Bible show that chauvanistic men wrote it, and that 
>the differences between people were used to show superiority of one set
>of people over another.  Now, defenders of the Bible will defend this
>by saying that the Word of God was given to these men, and they interpreted
>it, and wrote it down.  Therefore, they tainted the word of God with their
>own humanity.  

Either that or "God" has a pecker.

>	I'm not very schooled in other religions, but I do know that the 
>Islamic faith supports the culture in most Islamic country's and it is likely
>that the culture was similar when the Koran was written.  
>	Christianity is really the only religion to extricate itself from
>the society in which it began.  This accents the affect that the originators
>of the Bible had on Christianity.  Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Islam, etc..
>all pretty much remained in the area where they formed.  This makes it seem
>like the religion forms the culture.  However, Christianity has changed greatl

Bzzzzzt. Contrary to Western bigotry, Islam is spread as far as & has more 
members than xtianity. The western world has little islamic influence, due to
the historical power of the Catholic church (see, they did have some benefits;
they protected us from the virulence of Islamic fundamentalism). Asia and
africa, however, have unsettlingly large Islamic populations. 

>in the past few hundred years, while the Bible has not changed.  This shows
>that the culture forms the religion, not the other way around.

Well, I agree with your central thesis, but the _translations_ of the Bible
have certainly undergone a metamorphasis. Since very few read the original
hebrew/greek/aramaic this is what counts...

>	Is this enough to say that humans create religion, or just enough
>to say that we shape it to our society?  Is debunking religions enough to
>disprove God?  I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

Philosophically speaking, I suppose not. In terms of the real world, if there
are no "true religions" which represent the will of "god" the idea of god 
ceases to have any meaning to people.

Reminds me of various theories being developed in the world of physics that 
have no physically measurable consequences. What difference does a theory
make if it does not affect the world physically?

-Scott

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25203 talk.religion.misc:25363