HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<1992Dec28.122831.21650@walter.cray.com>
	<1992Dec29.163307.21853@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:22:36 GMT

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>It grieves me to hear this kind of discussion.  God gets accused of
>things that are really not his to begin with.  Both Christians and
>non-Christians alike attribute the pain and suffering in the world to
>God.  This is not true.

ye old problem of evil.  the counterargument: if god did not create
suffering (evil), who did?

>Do you remember that in the Bible, we humans chose to gain access to
>the knowledge of good and evil at the price of our lives.  Despite
>God's ample and clear warning. we chose to eat from that infamous
>fruit.  It reaped death for Adam and Eve then.  It reaps death for us
>now.  We, through some sort of spiritual genetics, inherited death
>from the originators.  Due to Adam and Eve, humanity had changed ever
>after.  We now die.  80 year olds die. 4 year olds die.  There are
>old age, cancer, sickness, war, starvation.  All this stuff happens
>now.  But remember, this is not the way God created it to begin with.
>God's will then is still his will now.  For all to come to Him and
>have everlasting life.

on the other hand, we have the argument:

god is omniscient.  therefore he knew that, if he created a situation
where man would be allowed to make the choice to select between
eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil, he would select
knowledge of good and evil.  god is also perfect; he would not create
a situation which was less than ideal.  therefore, it was preferable
for man to have knowledge of good and evil than it was for man to have
eternal life.

the problem is that god appears to be incapable of giving man both
eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.  this seems to be a
serious limitation on god.  why does he have this limitation?  this
seems to strike a major blow at god's supposed onmipotence.

the conclusion (if we accept the argument that god can only do that
which is logically possible) is that there is a logical contradiction
between having eternal life and having knowledge of good and evil.
frankly, i don't see one.  for one, god is eternal and has this
knowledge, but he exists anyhow (supposedly).  or is it merely
impossible for a being other than god to have both these qualities?

the other problem your comments raise is what is classically called
'the problem of evil'.  this refers to the question: if there is evil,
where did it come from, if god created everything?

--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<1992Dec28.182030.27262@prime.mdata.fi>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:10:28 GMT

iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

>What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:

>1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)
>2) Don't care about most of the commandments
>3) Go to church only at Christmas, if at all
>4) Donate little to the church, if at all

>Have people lost the meaning of Christianity? These people could as
>well be atheists, as it wouldn't change their life much.

um, i thought being a christian meant accepting jesus christ as your
lord and savior.  i didn't realize that it was, instead, reading the
bible, following the commandments, going to church every sunday, and
giving away 10% of your income.

*sigh*

somehow, i suspect that many (most?) of the people who claim to be
christians have no real idea what it means to 'accept jesus christ as
one's personal lord and savior'.

--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:25:25 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <2B4E036C.14041@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>>  Then you wouldn't mind a television show that broadcast live
>>  infant sacrifices in a Satanic ritual, now would you?
>
>Infant sacrifice is also known in the civil sphere are murder.  No such
>practices are extant in xtian ceremonies that are proscribed by civil
>law.
>

  Yeah, so is adultery, anal intercourse, stealing, robbery, and a
  plethora of other infractions that find their way into televised
  media in greater number than you can count (at least in several
  states).  Now please answer the question.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:22:48 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <MfHw_AG00iV143_FdS@andrew.cmu.edu>, Michael Loomis
<ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>
[complaints about Tong's logic deleted]
>
>My bet is that Mr. Tong's Anti-FAQ will be anti-factual.

We'll never know unless we e-mail him some questions from which he
attempts to create his anti-FAQ file.  I've sent him some of
what I regard as the most difficult, embarrassing, put-em-on-the-
spot questions for Christians.  Has anyone else been doing the same?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:16:27 GMT

In article <C0IyA8.6ss.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
>
>>Are you saying that my time with helping others, donating material and
>>time to my community and/or to those that need help (rather than building
>>another church) etc, etc, that I'm can't successfully do these things
>>with out being a christian ?
>
>No, of course not; he's just saying that you'll probably go to hell if you
>do these things and you aren't a Christian.  The Christian God doesn't
>care what you do if you aren't a Christian; you are all serving Satan in the
>end.

So I'm a Satanist and I didn't even know it?  Gee, I never got
my membership card or my secret decoder ring.  How about a nifty black
robe I can wear when I go out and ritually abuse thousand of people
every third tuesday.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24946 talk.religion.misc:25137 alt.pagan:14938
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:23 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1i63raINNi2u@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>In article <3JAN199300413846@elroy.uh.edu>, lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

..stuff deleted....

>|>
>I still don't see anything that would justify a charge of
>imposing her will on anyone.
> 
>jon.

You wouldn't.









I don't say that to inflame anyone.  Fact is, you're as fanatical about
O'Hair as fundies are about Xtianity.




Come back when you've opened up your mind enough to discuss it and not make
stupid jokes out of peoples comments.




Tammy
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:15:51 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to lieven@cco.caltech.edu]
 
>As an atheist, I usually consider religion as a necessary tool to
>impose a code of ethics people can live by,
 
We're discussing this in another threat, but I think that religion is
not the best tool for this.  There is no evidence that people in
countries with many atheists (the Netherlands, for example) are more
moral than their more religious neighbors and there are plenty of
examples of immoral theists.  I think the act of taking responsibility
for ones own existence provides a better incentive for moral behavior.
 
>and a way to address the fear of what lies beyond death.
 
I am comforted to know that the moment I die, all experience will cease,
so I can't be unhappy about it.  The fear of death is hard-wired into
the limbic system for its survival value, but realistically there is
nothing to fear about death, although dying may sometimes be unpleasant.
While I certainly enjoy life a great deal and have no wish for it to
stop, I wouldn't give that much for immortality.
 
>I have put together my own moral code
 
Have you looked at the Humanist Manifesto?  This is a moral code for
atheists, put together by some of the best philosophical minds of the
century.  [BTW, anyone know if this is on line somewhere?  I can't
remember if it is in the FAQ.  Should be if it isn't.  Is the FAQ
ftpable?].
 
>The remaining item which religion has solved and I have not...:  What,
>exactly, is the Point? By this, I mean: Is there a goal to be achieved,
>a level of purity on some standard to be attained, while we live?
 
There is no Point.  Religion hasn't solved the "problem" because there
isn't any.  You have complete freedom to decide your own goals.  My
Point is just to live the best life I can.  I am content to be an
accident of nature, utterly without any special place in the universe.
It's no big deal.  This is different from saying that my life is
insignificant.  It is the most significant thing to me and also of
significance to my friends and family.  Whether I am remembered after my
death or not if of no concern to me.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:58:48 GMT

In article <ksiew.726230394@munagin> ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>Right by her side.  Death is a result of sin, and happens from time to time
>>and for various reasons in our fallen world. 
>
> Death is a result of sin? Gee. I don't know. I've always thought that death is
>when your heart stops beating or if your head gets chop off. Where does sin
>comes into the picture. Even if you led a "sinless" life you will still die,
>so what is this death is a result of sin comes from?

   There are two types of death.  The first is physical, the second
spiritual.  Sin eventually results in spiritual death, which is far
worse than physical death.

> Funny considering that the Catholic Church spend so much time and energy
>stopping Scientific progress during the time of Galileo. And what does the 
>church says about using anaesthesia during child birth when it was first
>introduced? GOD FORBID!! So much for end the suffering of that girl. It is
>for the greater good of the truth that I mention these things to you. I 
>suggest you seek the truth for your answers. Read Matthew 10:34-36 
>At least Jesus got that one right!!!

   Galileo was not condemned for his scientific theories (which were
wrong anyway -- the Sun is not the center of the Universe), but for
saying they were the absolute truth, and trying to mix theology into
his science.  It probably didn't help his cause any that he was also
an arrogant, obnoxious jerk.

   As far as anesthesia, all you've given is innuendo, so I'm not sure
what exactly you're saying the Catholic Church did with respect to it.
However, I do remember enough history to say that in the early days of
anesthesia, quite a few people were killed by it, because the doctors
using it didn't quite have it perfected yet.  So a condemnation of it
at that time (which is what you seem to be implying) does not seem all
that unreasonable.

   The section from Matthew you reference talks of turning family
members against one another, etc.  It means that if one is to follow
God, one must forsake worldly things, even if that means forsaking
family members, etc. who will not follow God.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.132300.14141@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>as Peter Hampe recently pointed out, the whole
>notion of having a bible in the vernacular is
>in itself a very MODERN HERETICAL NOTION foiseted
>by Factions of the ModernSeXularHumanism upon
>the True Believers.
>
>Or did you miss the whole section in your shool
>days about the middle ages, not to mention, say
>history from 30AD to 1560AD?
  The Vulgate was a translation. The Roman Catholic Church objected to
later translations because
a) the RC Church was very much into control, and
b) information gets lost when you do a translation from a translation.
The vulgate was from "origional" material. Most translations were from the
vulgate.

-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:25:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <C0E1M3.HrM.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>
>OK! I goofed.  I admit it.  I was wrong about my statement of migration
>of religions.  I know that Islam and Buddism have spread beyond their
>areas of origin.  I should have stated it more like this:

Repent, and you will be saved! :) :)

>	I propose that Christianity is the only religion to change radically,
>due to it's spread, and subsequent change in society.

Judaism has also changed radically.  And Buddhism started without
any gods.  

>Western society has
>changed God from vengeful to loving.  Christianity now is based much more
>strongly on the New Testament than the Old.  A few hundred years ago, the Old
>Testament was much stronger.  

Your view of xtianity's change doesn't hold water, either.
One of the great tensions of xtian belief is the
simultaneous claim of an all-loving/all-powerful/all-just God.
The OT was given more weight in certain Protestant sects
a few hundred years ago, but it still is today.
Watch a few hours of TV evangelists (if you can stand it)
and pretty soon you'll see a lot of references to vengence
and punishment.  OTOH, Catholics and Anglicans have always
played down the parts of the OT regarding the wrath of God.

>	I do not believe that other religions have changed so much as to make
>obvious the inconstistencies in their writings.  Even though Islam has spread
>(more than I realized), has it evolved as Christianity has?

What you see as "evolution" is merely a large pile of 
writings and interpretations by xtian apologists trying
to make sense out of their traditions.  All major religions
have similar commentaries and interpretations.

Your view that xtianity is dynamic, and that all other
religions are substantially static, doesn't jive
with the history of any religions.  Nice try, though.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24945 talk.religion.misc:25136 alt.pagan:14937
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:16 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1i63h6INNi2u@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>In article <3JAN199300363050@elroy.uh.edu>, lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>|> In article <1i2raqINN8rh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>|> 
>|> ...stuff from previous posts deleted.....
>|> 
>|> and blue laws (use to) let you buy a can of beans on sunday, but not a
>|> can opener to open it with.
>|> 
>|> Madeleine Murray O'Hare and her family has done a great deal to impose
>|> their will on non-atheists....
>|> 
>|> Not that I object to the end result, just the intent behind the means....
> 
> 
>Pardon my denseness, but is someone *making* you buy can openers
>on Sunday?
> 
>jon.

*SIGH!*

It's an example of christian fundamentalism and how it affects society in an 
area where it is strong and some of the STUPID laws and combination of laws
that get passed.

WAKE UP JON AND SMELL THE COFFEE!

Tammy the exasperated!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:49:49 GMT

In article <1ivuj9INNa1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.005042.22617@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> Actually, the problem is that the Christian example is phrased
>> something like "looking with an open mind" and it's impossible
>> to prove that one has fulfilled THAT condition. But I didn't
>> phrase it that way. I phrased it as just looking, and I most
>> certainly did look. Hard enough, or open mind, etc. just don't
>> enter into it in this case. 
>Did you try sending Jimmy Swaggart fifty dollars so that he
>could pray for the Lord to open your eyes?
No, I most certainly did not. And I don't maintain that I've
proved Jimmy Swaggart to be false. Does Jimmy Swaggart maintain
that if I send him $50, my eyes will be opened? If not, it's
hardly much of a test, is it?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:51:29 GMT

In article <0PZuwB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>> Intelligence is superior to stupidity, but atheism is not an equate to
>> intelligence. Thus, atheism is not 'superior' to religion.
>
>   A > B
>   C != A
>=> C <= D

More like:

 a>b
 c!=a
 d!=b

=> c!=d ie. they aren't 'related' point by point

>
>Love that reasoning.
>
>
>mathew
>


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:08:34 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan6.233359.4894@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> 
>|> According to the tale, God not only knew it, he could have stopped
>|> it, but chose not to.  The resulting death and suffering is on
>|> his hands, or would be if he really existed.
>|> 
>
>God chose not to stop us because God gave us free will.  We chose to disobey.
>God did not create us to be robots.  He has in mind a much higher purpose for us.

This justification only works if God is not omnipotent. Otherwise,
he would have been able to create us in such a way that we would
not choose to disobey.

>Our God is a fair and just God.  

But with limited abilities.