HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:46:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.154721.15125@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>
>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>
>>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).
>
>>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?
>
>>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
>
>Mr. LeRoy has given me permission to point out to everyone that what
>he states is [just] his opinion.
>
>If the above is to be taken as pure opinion and not as a statement of
>fact, then no retraction is required.  I will point out two things to
>the readership, however.
>
>-- Mr. LeRoy attempted to support his "opinion" as fact for several
>   days in response to my queries.
>
>-- His instruction that the above is just opinion came just after it
>   became apparent to me that two arguments against the validity of
>   his "opinion" will remain unanswered by him.
>
>It almost goes without saying that I think Mr. LeRoy's above opinion
>does not reflect reality.
>
>To the readership: My apologies for being so inflammatory with Mr.
>LeRoy.  I simply find it irresponsible to make offensive statements
>like the one above and be unwilling to back them up.

Give it a rest Gregg.  You're hardly one to talk.  I'm sure it feels
good to be on top for once, but we can do without your condescending
bullshit.  Besides, I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic?  Not enough
fuzz, right?  Well, in this particular case, I'm glad that your mind
is filled with fuzz, so I'm certainly not going to do much to try to clear
it out.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:37:33 EDT
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
 <92226.014101U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <1992Aug13.233830.1175@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug17.095846.15578@bradford.ac.uk>

Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:

1. On the creation of the universe:
Awalam erallazina  kararoo
Annasamawate wal arda
kanata ratkan
fafataqna'hooma

Meaning:
Do not the unbelievers see
that the heavens and the earth
were joined together as one unit of creation
befor We clove them asunder?(Qur'an 21:30)

2. On the motion of sun and moon:
        Wa huallazi khalaqal
lay'la wan-nahara
wash-shamsa wal qamara
kullun fee falakee'n yasbahoon. (Qur'an, 21:33)

Meaning:
And it is He (God) who created
the night and the day
and the sun and the moon
all celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded courses.

3. Creation of living beings from water:
Wa ja'al'na menal maa'e
kulla shaiyeen haiyeen
a'fala yoomenoon. (Qur'an)

Meaning:
And we made (created) from water
every living thing.
Will they then not believe?

The references to the expanding universe can be found in Qur'an 51:47.
About the creation of vegetable kingdoms and animal kingdoms, the
references are in 36:36. Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a French scholar,
has written two books on the scientific findings in the Qur'an.
Anyone interested can consult these two books:
1. What is the origin of Man by Maurice Bucaille, Seghers Publishers,
France (English version).
2. The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, American Trust Publications,
USA.


- Siddiqui.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,sci.physics,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:34:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <2A945C8C.15126@orion.oac.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.022459.11564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
>>In article <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:
>>>Jesus Saves
>>
>>Gretzky Steals, He shoots, He SCORES!

>Jesus save, Moses invests.

>Jesus saves sinners -- and redeems them for VALUABLE CASH PRIZES!!!

>Any more out there?

>Blessings,
>Janis

God said unto Moses, "Come forth", but he came fifth and won a teapot.

[excuse - i was 12 when i heard this one]

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  What should always be remembered about England is that from 1950   |
|  to 1957 one of the most popular acts on RADIO was a VENTRILOQUIST  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rohan@nmc.cit.cornell.edu (Rohan Oberoi)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution 
Keywords: Islam, Koran, bullshit.
Organization: Cornell Network Management Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:04:24 GMT

 
RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Siddiqui) writes:

>Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
>to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:
>
>.1. On the creation of the universe:
>Awalam erallazina  kararoo
>Annasamawate wal arda
>kanata ratkan
>fafataqna'hooma
>
>Meaning:
>Do not the unbelievers see
>that the heavens and the earth
>were joined together as one unit of creation
>befor We clove them asunder?(Qur'an 21:30)

[ and lots more in the same vein ]

**********************************************************

You have a misconception, Mr Sidddiqui, about what 
constitutes a scientific fact.  What you have presented in
the above verse is an unprovable hypothesis: a hypothesis, 
because it has not been proved true, and unprovable, 
because you have presented no prediction which can be 
tested to ascertain the veracity or inaccuracy of your
claim.

A scientific fact is any piece of knowledge from which
verifiable conclusions can be drawn.  Take, for instance,
the statement that "water boils at 100 C".  From this 
hypothesis, we can make the prediction that if we heat 
^^^^^^^^^^          
water to that temperature, it will turn into a gas.  This
experiment has been done on numerous occasions, and our 
prediction has held true; hence we no longer call it a 
hypothesis, but a scientific fact.  This also means that 
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
water will boil at 100 C whether the stove is turned on by
you, Mr. Siddiqui, or an unbeliever like me.

The koranic verses you have presented to us do not prove
anything, and they do not predict anything; all they 
constitute is a statement of a belief held by you and other
                               ^^^^^^
Mussalmans that the heavens and the earth were created by a 
divine being.  The fact that I think you are wrong, and that 
you are an idiot, has nothing to do with the matter.  You 
have a right to your own opinion, but if you want anyone other 
than your fellow Mussalmans to believe your claim that the 
Koran contains "scientific facts" (other than those known to
any illiterate camel-herder), you had better back it up with
more than the nonsensical jiggery-pokery you have presented.


Rohan Oberoi

************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:43:36 GMT

In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
}yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
}> In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mik
}> |> For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
}> |> "Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that m
}> |> a large difference).
}> 
}> Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
}> an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
}> my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
}> yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.
}
}Large difference?  Pthphthth.
}
}Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.

And how do you classify that extermination of Homo s. directed by Yahweh?


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 06:45:56 GMT


	Deism as a form of "Theophobia" ? Sounds a little outlandish
to me. Peraps it is those who tell us to "fear god" that are really 
afraid of him. While I am anot by any means an expert on physics or
eveolutionary science I do NOT shrug my shoulders and say "it must
be of the supernatural" when I see something I do not understand, for
that is truly the road to superstition and the path to fear of the
unknown....

	BTW, if you, the writer, has no respect for my arguments just 
because they are different- then how serious where you when you
claimed to be chalenging the accepted norms and dogma you said you 
did ?



	P.S. (part of your .sig file that had some sort of info in it
got cut off from my copy of the file, if you could drop me a line of
E-mail, I would be thankfull.....)

-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:04:43 GMT

In article <BsxFM7.AxM@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

> After responses over the net and over email, I decided to pick up a copy of the 
> NIV Student Bible (which I had seen, and liked, the day before I posted).  In
> it, there are introductions to each chapter, many side-bars, and interjected 
> material.  All of these "extras" are, of course, geared for the Christian
> reader, but they seem thoughtful, rather than reactionary.  In addition, there
> are "reading plans" that suggest a different reading schedule depending on how
> much of the Bible you intend to read.  

Well, I suppose I should have contributed to this thread before you went and 
doled out your hard-earned cash, but I, for one, would NOT recommend the NIV.
I first became suspicious of it when I noticed that it is a favourite of 
the fundies here in Australia, so I checked out its rendering of a few 
controversial passages. Without exception, the NIV always gives a translation
which is most in line with a orthodox christian interpretation. Anything which
may trouble the minds of the faithful is happily translated out. For example
it translates Luke 2:1 in such a way as to make it say that Quirinius held *two*
censes, so as to get Luke out of one of his more glaring historical errors, 
despite the fact that this requires some prodigious twisting of the greek.
Still, you've bought it now, so happy reading.

> It's funny that buying a Bible in a bookstore made me feel like an eighteen-year
> -old buying a Penthouse.

It should, wait till you read some of the filth in the OT!!! ;-)
Tim O'Neill

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15486 alt.politics.bush:2328 alt.politics.clinton:2403 soc.motss:36149
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:00:51 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <20AUG199213272282@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
>	The Republican party proclaims that it is the party of
>judeo-christian values and that the Democrats are godless, anti-family
>baby-killers. They claim that either you are either pro-family and 
>anti-homosexual, or that if you support the right of homosexual couples
>to the same legal protections that heterosexual couples presently enjoy
>then you are somehow trying to destroy the traditional two parent
>male-female family. I'm afraid I don't see the corelation. Do they
>perhaps fear that currently happy married couples will split because a
>gay man is allowed to visit his male spouse in the hospital as a
>legitimate member of family? Will divorce rates skyrocket because a
>lesbian woman and her partner may combine their income on one tax form?
>Would someone please like to explain to me how the "traditional" family
>could possibly be hurt by allowing homosexual couples the _same_ rights
>that heterosexual couples are granted?
>

For many people, I think it is more a question of approval. By granting equal
rights, they feel they are giving their tacit approval of behavior they don't
approve. I understand the argument about visiting a loved one in the hospital.
I would think this to be more a matter of hospital regulations than actual law.
Take it up with the hospital. As far as tax results, I doubt that heteros have 
thought about it. The real issue is influence. Influence on children. Many feel
that gays are a threat, not in the sense of sexually molesting their kids, but
by example. It is not a behavior that most wish their children to emulate, and
any perceived threat to children will be fought tooth and nail.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: a thought.....
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:19:07 GMT


	Is it against god to take LSD? If so, why ? I have never read

"And thou shall not feed thy head"

	or anything like that, besides, some of the Revelations stuff
	sounds like some really bad LSD or PCP....



	(I'm serious about the LSD question.....)



-- 
"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: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:02:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Aug.14.00.05.15.1992.17895@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>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.

  Isn't it just as probable that the early law is barbaric because
  that's all the people were ready to invent?  This slow evolution
  of enlightenment smacks very much of man's socialization, not some
  progressive revelation by god.  It also gets rid of your apparent
  paradox of a benevolent god adjusting his morality to fit the times.

  This reminds me of one scene in Mel Brook's "The History of the 
  World, Part 1", where Moses comes down of the mountain with three 
  tablets held high and proclaims "The fifteen..." 
  (one tablet falls to the ground, shattering) "ten commandments!".

>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.

  What's a "reasonable degree of autonomy"?  "If you don't give me
  your wallet, I'll shoot you in ten minutes"?  Apparently, God had 
  to give the Hebrews some moral code.  Why not the right one the 
  first time?  

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 12 Aug 1992 18:04:27 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

OK, I'll bite. ..

Quoth jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com (in <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com>):
#Here is another version of the argument:
#
#Suppose there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.  If it is
#possible for an all-powerful God to exist, then He (assumed for convenience)
#must exist in at least one of them.  And if He exists in one, then He can
#assure that life capable of knowing Him appears only in that one (since He
#is *all-powerful*).  Since we are capable of knowing Him, He exists in our
#universe. 

Bzzzt! This reduces to "if god exists, god must exist." Consider the
case of two universes, A and B Suppose god exists in A but not in B.
You are saying that this god is capable of ensuring that life capable
of knowing it exists in A but not in B. This requires that god affects
universe B. But god does not exist in universe B (earlier
supposition).  This implies that god transcends universes A and B.  If
this god transcends all universes, then it is existent w.r.t. all
universes. In other words, you've restated that "if X can possibly
exist, then X must exist". Substitute the usual blue banana, and you're
all set.

#And another:
#
#If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful god could come into
#existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a god must
#necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
#god must now exist.

Please demonstrate unambiguously that "eternity" is a coherent concept.
Since it seems to presume (1) that the concept of time is meaningful
outside the observable universe, and that (2) you have information
about conditions "before the Big Bang" (possibly a meaningless phrase,
of course) we would all be fascinated to know your sources and
information channels for these presumptions. Please be careful to avoid
circularity.... :-) After that, we can deal with the rest of this stuff.

#You may find holes in these too, especially in the liklihood of the
#premises, but they are not as trivial as your Gold Cup example above.

Actually, they are pretty much equivalent to the original in complexity
and sophistication.

--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect | In the years after WW2 it was said that Oxford
  (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)  | philosophers had found a cure for atheism.
         SunSelect,            | Young people coming up as atheists soon found
  a Sun Microsystems Business  | that they no longer knew what to disbelieve...
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:16:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


	I'm sorry, but I just have to answer this.....:-)



	(1)Where will I go when I die ?

	To "GENDERBENDIA". It is a cool place where I will have
	constant sex with Drag Queens, Transexuals, She-Males &
	cross-dressers. AND NO RUBBERS ARE NEEDED- JUST CONSTANT
	ORAL SEX !!!!!  :-)   *wow* <yes, I go both ways ;-)  >

	(2)If I kicked the bucket today, would I go to "heaven"

	Like I said, us flexible Bisexuals go to "GENDERBENDIA",
	where we have sex forever and ever ( also, we can have 
	sex with other men & women :-)   )

	(3)What if god asked me why I should be allowed into 
	"heaven" (GENDERBENDIA)

	I'd say something like: "Babe, how goes it, remember me,
	White Rook, you sent me on a mission to have as much gay/
	transgendered sex as humanly possible and to Rock-n-Roll
	and show the light of Bisexuality to all ?", then I would
	whip out my radio and put on some Go-Go's, REM, Blue Oyster
	Cult, Motorhead...something like that. And then the big one
	and I would party. Note too that when god sent me on my mission
	of sex and fun, I found out that god is a gender-bender (a
	she-male and a HOT one at that *wow*)



	MY agenda is complete flexablity in gender selection of
	sex partners :-)



-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:20:57 GMT

In article <10156@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.173555.23367@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>
>>I am not trying to use this as a proof of the truth of Islam,
>>just showing the person who is mocking prophet Mohamed as a
>>"desert nomad" man that this man is among the top who influenced
>>humanity with the message he brought.
>>
>
>  Ditto for Hitler.
>

Prophet Mohamed did not go about making a genocide of millions of
people.  On the other hand he did bring a new ideology and a system
that englobes all aspects of human life.  There is absolutely no
comparison between Mohamed (PBUH) and Hitler.  I invite you to read
about the life of prophet Mohamed and judge for yourself.

>
>Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
>

Ridha
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 04:19:52 GMT


	souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu sez:

>forget the spelling test.

	This is sinful to question the spelling of your dyslexic
god !!!!!!!!!!


	Can you PROVE your god makes the sun rise ? Last time I 
looked the sun did that on it's own. Well...perform the miracle and
I will top it !!!!!

(he said his god makes the sun rise in the east and asked me to
make it do so in the west.)


	Look....I did the god bit to make a point. No one has
yet DISPROVED me as god. NO ONE has done a miracle for me to top.
This guy claims his god makes the sun rise, but I know this to be
caused by the rotation of the earth.(SARCASM MODE ON  ...minor point
but I had to bring it up :-)  SARCASM MODE OFF)


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism