HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:23:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.164917.28618@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr7.164444.13814@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com writes:
|> >Whoa there!  Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
|> >regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify today),
|> >you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for facts that
|> >can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?  What does
|> >it say about historical events?
|> 
|> 	What it says about human nature is not facts, its opinion,  there is
|> a difference,  many things we do now would have been "miraculous" to the
|> writers of the bible.

....

|> 	Since it was written so long ago,  *anything* it says is not 
|> verfiable in any sense that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

You're way too general here.  The Bible says that Israel was conquered
by Assyria and Judah was conquered by Babylon, are you saying that those
statements are not verifiable?  The Bible says that Jews lived in the
city of Jerusalem 2000 years ago, that's not verifiable either?

If so, we must dismiss any evidence or any report of any kind about
any event that happened very long ago.

|> 	Just how do you propose to *verify* things written by/witnessed
|> by people who've been dead for several thousand years ?,  I certainly wouldn't
|> want to convict anyone on it.

Much, if not most, of what the Bible presents as "current events" has
been verified by archeology.  True the Bible goes into finer detail than
archeology could ever manage.

My point is that the claim that the Bible can be claimed inaccurate and
dismissed because of its age and the "obvious" "fact" that it has changed
drastically over the years can be reasonably verified.  If someone were
to manipulate the Bible for their own purposes would you expect them to
carefully maintain its record of history?  What if rewriting history
served their purposes better?  Judging from the last few decades of
world events, rewriting history can be a major tool for manipulation.
It's also detectable.

Suppose that the Bible is completely accurate on its description of
"current events".  Does that prove that what it says about spiritual
matters is true?  Nope.  All it does is supply evidence that the Bible
is a book worth serious consideration.

|> 	Just because we can't currently come up with a *natural* explanation
|> for some phenomena does not mean that one does not exist.  The history of 
|> man is in part the search for explanations for what was previously 
|> considered miraculous.

I'll offer you the same challenge I offered Christian Walters.  YOU
try to define miracle.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:29:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.204154.4441@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
> 	I think I shall have to rethink my position here, I don't know if
> I can live with being on the same side of an argument as Larry :-)
> -- 
> |--------------------------------------------------|
> |  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
> |  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
> |--------------------------------------------------|

I will have to admit that it is a tad disconcerting to find myself on the
same side as brother Nik... however, since neither of us (being intelligent
folk) subscribes to any of the neatly prepackaged world views, right off-the-
shelf, without questioning same, we are bound to find ourselves in agreement
on occasion, purely by accident - although it does tend to frighten one.

Obviously though, this time, Nik has all his facts straight, and has done a
fine job of thinking through the issues, unlike when we disagree!!  :-) ;-)

Larry "it was bound to happen sooner or later..." Hughes

Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:57:33 GMT

In article <4494.29ECC392@umagic.FIDONET.ORG> Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray) writes:
>LH> to redirect pagan celebrations to christian ones. Pagan symbols are the
>LH>
>LH> "christmas" tree, holly wreathes, candles (fire), yule logs, etc. 
>
>I have to jump in here.  To the Christian, the Christmas tree represents 
>the Father.....
>
 I've never heard that before. How can some pagan image represent the Father.
 Is this more crap from your fundie wierdo cult? (please don't call it
 Christian, you will offend *real* christians)

 Would you care to expound on this and any other misrepresentations of
 orthodox Christianity that you and your cult have?

-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:10:45 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jeff W. Hyche says:
>>The position that we're all supposed to apologize or atone for these
>>"God guaranteed sins" strikes me as odd, to say the least.
 
>I have this problem too.  What is wrong with being human?
 
Nothing, I hope. If there is, we're pretty much up a creek :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Wed,  8 Apr 92 11:24:25 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Dave Wiley says:
>"Atheist = one who denies the existence of god" is
>precise, but I suspect these critters are rare.  After all it's
>essentially just the mirror reverse of "theist."  Like
>Satanism, it's just silly and reactionary.  "Agnostic = one
>who disclaims all knowledge of god" is probably far more common.
>I don't have to deny the existence of smurfs, I just choose not
>to worry about it.
 
Yes, I should have included the vast numbers of people who don't care or
who think it's all irrevelant. But since these people rarely enter into
a religious debate, there wasn't much point in getting needlessly picky.
(No offense :) )
 
>More practically speaking, most people I have met who label themselves
>"agnostic" choose to spend a portion of their time thinking about
>matters spiritual, they just haven't subscribed to any particular
>flavor of dogma.
 
This makes sense to me, I guess. But someone who waits around looking
for the right philosophy to come along is not, to me, technically an
agnostic. More like a theistic wanna-be whose train hasn't showed.
 
>Most people I've met (including me :-) who label
>themselves "atheist" feel that matters spiritual don't have any
>relevance to conducting one's life.
 
I suspect that, as you say, there are bunches of these people around.
But, again, since they aren't likely to go around shouting that, it's
hard to spot them. (And I bet it's as hard to disprove someone who says
"I don't think it matters" as it is to disprove the assertion "I don't
know." :) )



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:45:52 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

LH> to redirect pagan celebrations to christian ones. Pagan symbols are the
LH>
LH> "christmas" tree, holly wreathes, candles (fire), yule logs, etc. 

I have to jump in here.  To the Christian, the Christmas tree represents 
the Father.....


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:43:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.145011.8722@infonode.ingr.com> jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com writes:
>
>If your neighbor is a "fundie", watch out!  They are _really_ scary people.
>They will continually jump up and down while screaming Biblical verses
>at the top of thier lungs.  They will try to convert you forcibly at every
>opportunity, always trying to ram their beliefs down you throat.  And they
>are completely unreasoning about everything.
>

	Congratulations,  thats a pretty good description of the type of
fundamentalist (of whatever religion or lack thereof) that is pain to have
around and definitely no fun at parties ;-)

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:39:43 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

KT>  Would you care to expound on this and any other misrepresentations of
KT> orthodox Christianity that you and your cult have?

No, and I sure do wish EchoDor has an ignore feature on it.


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition (was Re: Christian Bashing)
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:13:13 GMT

In article <4413.29E45CCE@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Jim Cobabe says:
|> >I would further qualify a miracle as a phenomenon with an unknown
|> >or as-yet unexplained cause.  Miracles are extraordinary.  We think
|> >we understand the how-and-why of things we see happening every
|> >day.  So when something unexpected or inexplicable happens, we say
|> >"Wow!  It's a miracle!"  :-)
|>  
|> I'm assuming here that you are using the royal "we." :) *I* don't do
|> that. I wait for Dan Rather or Carl Sagan to explain it :)

Yes, I normally have the same reaction.  Miracles are _extraordinary_.
But I presume that you assume some understanding of commonplace things,
as I stated.
 
|> >However, I also consider many seemingly commonplace things to
|> >be somewhat miraculous as well.  The birth of a child, for example.
|>  
|> People have said this one before. Interesting. Biologically, a
|> childbirth is no more miraculous than a bush budding. And when you hear
|> the screams of a woman in labor as she leaves inch-deep fingerprints in
|> a steel bedrail, I bet "It's a mircale!" ain't the first thing in your
|> mind :) Something like "Good lord, give her some morphine before she
|> shatters my glasses!" :)

Your observations about childbirth are not very accurate, according to my
experience.   Maybe you believe too much of what you see on TV.  :-)
I have noticed that TV programs and movies seldom develop themes which
attempt to accurately share some of the unique experience involved in
having children.

If you ever have occasion to share a birth experience with someone you love
deeply, you may understand my feelings.  You might come to a better
appreciation of the childbirth experience by associating with a family that
has a newborn baby.  There is a feeling that accompanies this experience
that defies description.  I'm afraid it is not logical or quantifiable, yet it exists
none the less.

I suppose it is the experiencing of this feeling that leads many to believe that
childbirth is a miracle.

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       |                                |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 19:21:02 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Well, after my wonderful leave of absense, I return!  (unfortunately :) ).



KT>  Fundies believe (in the pro-active) sense in the absolute pre-eminence
KT> of Biblical Interpration. Many TV evangalests take a fundie route,
KT> since
KT> it's easier to overwhelminly convince the gullible fundie that he and
KT> he alone is on the way to salvation.
KT> 

Yes, true.

KT> The art of TV fundie preaching got it's start in the tent revial
KT> meetings
KT> that cover the south in the summer and fall months.
KT> 

True again.

KT> The real question becomes Why is Fundie so popular? I belive that in
KT> large doses Fundamentalism becomes a narcotic to the masses. Fundies
KT> believe that they are on God's side and He will defend them from the
KT> evil world. That a relationship with God can be bought and doesn't
KT> require any real involvment by the individual.
KT> 

Wrongo bucko!  I don't believe a relationship to God can be bought.
Sure, God will protect them, but they must be on His side, not Him on their side.

KT> Most fundie groups will accept only a few of the books of the New
KT> Testament
KT> and isolated quotes from the Old Testament. They have  a fear of
KT> reading
KT> a context into a scripture. Most of fundies primary motivations is not
KT> love of God but fear. Fear is the primary motivation of a fundie's
KT> life.
KT> Fear of What? You Name it, they've Got it.
KT> 
 

I accept EVERY book of the Catholic Canon (strange for a Protestant, huh?).


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:12:05 GMT

In article <4412.29E45CCC@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Les Bartel says:
|> >Many scholars accept the Bible as an accurate and trustworthy source of
|> >history.
|>  
|> I'm not really arguing about the Bible's worth as a journal of events at
|> the time. But being historically accurate does not make it any more
|> inspired by God than a 20th Century political science textbook will be
|> 300 years from now.

It's historical accuracy adds credibility to its other contents.  I 
understand that many of the other contents are not always closely
related to the historical events, so there is a gap there that must
be explained.  Unfortunately, I'm not well enough informed to fill in
all those gaps.

|> The first chance I get, I will look at his book. It would be unfair of
|> me to discredit him because he is unconvincing in person. :)

It's refreshing to see an open mind like this.  Unfortunately, too many
people will reject Christianity without even considering the evidence.

|> --  
|>  * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic

 - Les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:54:26 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says, with malice of forethought:
>What you want is something with big dramatic impact.  Making an
>elephant disappear, or something like that.  :-)
 
I imagine David Copperfield would have been revered as a god by, say,
the Aztecs :)
 
But, no - "flashy" is not necessarily what I'm looking for. I found the
tornado that went up Airport Road a few years back to be very flashy,
and the damage it caused to be impressive (and the traffic problems to
be profound :) ) but I wouldn't call it a miracle.
 
So, what do you think when you watch a rainbow? Do you think "Ahh, god
is with us"? Do you think the same thing when a tornado eats a trailer
park, or do you think "a tornado is a very localized area of extreme low
pressure which manifests itself as a funnel cloud"?
 
>Yet to me, seeing green leaves reappear on trees in the spring is a
>great drama.
 
You must possess an unnatural patience if you can watch leaves grow back
on trees :) I *would* sit you down sometime and explain why they do
that, but if your parents never saw fit to, who am I to deny their
wisdom? (Maybe they should have government help, eh? :) )
 
Besides, how can it be a great drama if you know how it's going to end
from the start? :)
 
>I know that others share my feelings about rainbows, because I have
>heard Kermit the Frog singing a song about them.
 
I wouldn't dream of debating the wisdom and philosophy of Kermit. What
did he say about existentialism? :)
 
>(You listen to Sagan or Rather, I prefer Kermit.)
 
Let's be fair. I like Kermit, but I don't want him lecturing on manned
missions to Mars and I don't want him giving me my evening news. ("Hi,
ho! Kermit the frog here! Today in the occupied West Bank, there were
more shots exchanged as a kosher Chuck E. Cheese's was built...")
 
>The rainbow kinds of miracles serve just as well for me, and are much
>more practical.
 
Yeah, but aren't you just ITCHIN' to see a good ol' parting of the
waters? :)
 
>There are few enough elephants already.  :-)
 
Boy, that's the truth. Especially around here. Didn't David Copperfield
bring his back, though? He had it up his sleeve the whole time, didn't
he? And why does Doug Henning look so much like Jesus? Or, at least, the
WASP interpretation of Jesus :)
 



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: wilsonk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Wilson)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:36:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.143336.832@b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.180702.11905@infonode.ingr.com>, deaverpf@infonode.ingr.com (Paul F. Deaver) writes:
> > Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> > > 
> > >I believe it was a pagan group that picked Christmas on Dec. 25th, and
> > >may even be responsible for Santa Claus. I sure can't find him in the
> > >Bible :)
> > 
> > Santa, as we know him, was defined by the CocaCola Company.  
> > --
> > Paul 
> 
> Actually, Santa occurs in many cultures, as Kris Kringle, St. Nicholas, etc.,
> usually as a jolly, elderly man that comes bearing gifts for good children.
> Also, see my other posting about when and why the CHRISTIAN church placed
> Christmas on Dec 25.... but you are right - no kindly old Santas in the
> christian bible, just lots of death, smiting, "laying with" anyone/anything
> and blood/misery/guilt/sin for all. I'll take the Santa approach, thank you.
> 
> Larry "bash, bash, bash" Hughes

	In some European countries (The Netherlands to be exact) Kris 
        Kringle's birthday is December 5th.  This "Christmas" is not 
	associated/confused  with the birth of Christ (which is observed
	with prayer each December 25th).


	Keith (more FACTS for the rumor mill) Wilson
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:55:06 GMT

In article <4374.29E152E3@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|>  
|> >Who said "an eye for an eye" was passe?
|>  
|> If I remember right, Jesus did. :) Confucius, I think, had a good
|> saying: to your friends, give love - to your enemies, give justice. I
|> think Confucius would have liked Clint Eastwood. :)

Jesus was quoting a common practice (I believe it was mentioned in the Old
Testament).  This quote is in Matthew 5:38 and goes on to say  "... turn the
other cheek...".  He is saying to Love your enemies.  Ok, here it is:

MAT 5:38  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth:
MAT 5:39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
MAT 5:40  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy cloak also.
MAT 5:41  And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
MAT 5:42  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
of thee turn not thou away.
MAT 5:43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
MAT 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;

  - Les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:40:15 GMT

|> I write
|> > 
|> > Many scholars accept the Bible as an accurate and trustworthy source of
|> > history.  The Bible has never been proven wrong when it comes to
|> > archeological findings (though not every archeological fact in the Bible
|> > has been proven true, the evidence strongly indicates that it is reliable).
|> > The book _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_ by Josh McDowell is an excellent
|> > source for this kind of information.  Mr. (Dr.?) McDowell is a scientist who
|> > began his work in an attempt to discredit the Bible.  After his research,
|> > he became convinced that the Bible is in fact the Word of God (note his
|> > bias) and is completely accurate and reliable.
|> > There are a number of
|> > other cases where an individual searching for the truth (with a bias)
|> > had to change his/her premise because of the overwhelming evidence.
|> > 
Nik Simpson writes
|> 
|> 	It is common practice to cite other works which agree with a point you
|> are trying to make,  Von Daniken was one of the finest practitioners of 
|> picking on and citing those facts which agreed with his premise while ignoring
|> less convenient ones.

Agreed.  But see my comments above.  Don't you think that someone who
sets out to disprove something might try to select work to back him/her
up?  McDowell had a bias (how much I don't know) _against_ the Bible.
His research to discredit the Bible forced him to change his thesis.
Now, doesn't that _add_ credibility to his statements?

Can you point me to some sources that prove the Bible unreliable?  Are
these authors biased?  If the Bible were so inaccurate, do you really
believe that there would still be Christians (and _lots_ of them)
around after 2000 years?

My references are at home, so I'll have to respond to your other
questions when I can get the facts.

Please don't take these statements as a personal attack.  They are
intended as a friendly rebuttal with the goal of defending my beliefs.

 - Les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
Newsgroups: hsv.religion