HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Satan is a hero
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.222011.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
|>      Satan is the ultimate hero. He fought the power. He said "I shall not
|> serve". He fights for man.... when everyone else fights for something else.
|> 
|>      Satan is the American dream... the freedom to run your own life free
|> from tyranny. Satan is individualism... fuck the powers that be. Satan is
|> human rights... when no one else wants to fight back.
|> 
|>      Don't curse Satan... Hail him.
|> 
|>     
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> John P. LaRocque
|> vader@uwo.ca
|> University of Western Ontario
|> London, Ontario
|> 
|> 
|> "Urk..urk..."
|> "Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader

These sentiments were well expressed in "The Satanic Bible"
by Alexander Lafey (Lavey, something like that, gave my copy
to a library.)

-ldh

P.S  I don't beleive it, I just read it for the sake of a personal
     agreement.

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21565 alt.atheism:21680
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:49:36 EST
 <92324.122242EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <adams.722198596@spssig>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <adams.722198596@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>
> No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'

   How do you know?
 
>>The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
>>as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
>>go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
>>religion (to our present knowledge )?
> 
> Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.

   Well, there's this guy in talk.origins who says that all living things,
including viruses, have souls :-)

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Christmas
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:10:40 GMT

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>The conception of Jesus was, I believe, virginal, but that does not necessarily
>mean that a physical union with Joseph did not happen.  Note that Mary says
>that she "knows not a man".  The loss of virginity is not so much a physical
>thing as a soul-spiritual thing.  One can imagine that the Holy Spirit 
>used the physical instruments of both the bodies of Mary and of Joseph to
>cause the physical aspect of conception to occur, and yet they both remained
>virginal as far as consciousness, passion, and so on is concerned. Note
>that in this case the prominence and importance of Joseph's blood lineage
>becomes clearer.

That sounds like an awful lot of over-rationalization!  The Bible says
"conceived of a virgin", and you know this isn't physically possible,
so rather than admit that the Bible might somehow be wrong here, you
try to re-define "virgin".  (If Joseph and Mary had sex without
passion or "so on", then it must have been a terribly utilitarian act
-- certainly not how I'd think a Christian would like to believe his
messiah was conceived!)

I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but this sort of
over-rationalization goes on all the time in Christianity.  Apply it
faithfully enough, and you can get the Bible to say most anything.
I've even seen some passages interpreted to support murder.

>The birth of Christ in Jesus, the manifestation of which first occurred
>when Jesus was about thirty, is another aspect of the greater phenomenon 
>which is referred to as the Virgin Birth.

The "power to do miracles" was present in Jesus since he was a little
kid.  The Gospel of Thomas (at least I think it was Thomas, or maybe
somebody else with a T-name) was one of the Gospels that the early
Church decided not to include in the Bible because it didn't depict
Jesus in the way they wanted him depicted; one story in it tells of a
little boy Jesus turning lumps of clay into birds.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:01:14 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <nyikos.722049541@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>2.  God creates individuals and does NOT know ahead of time all that
>they will do. [William James endorses this view.]  Orthodox Christianity
>generally frowns on this view since God's "omniscience" is usually taken
>as a given, but "omniscience" could, IMHO, be interpreted to mean knowing
>all that IS happening or has happened.

I believe that another orthodox Christion objection to this view is
that it denies the absolute perfection and unity of God.  If God
didn't know yesterday that I would have a steamed Chinese bean bun for
breakfast this morning, but does know it now, then God must have grown
in perfection since yesterday because he grew in knowledge and
knowledge is a perfection for beings capable of it.  So yesterday he
must not have been quite perfect.  Also, since something is true about
God as he is today that isn't true about God as he was yesterday (he
now has greater knowledge) then God yesterday and God today can't be
quite the same and the unity of God is impaired.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:35:51 GMT

In article <17503@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>>>God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
>>>as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.
>>
>>What's the difference between these two?
>
>There is a difference, given that both God and man are free agents.
>If this is true, then our suffering may be our own doing and God
>is trying to save us from it.  

This is not only false, but ludicrous.

Think about it a moment: if God defined the rules to begin with, and thus
defined the consequences of actions, then God need only change the rules
in order to save everyone.  This will have no effect on free will.  All it
need do is change the consequences of the choices we can make, without
changing the actual set of available choices.

The only way your God can "try" to save someone and *fail* is if that
person explicitly *wants* to suffer, i.e. chooses it directly as a
course of action rather than simply accept it as a consequence of some
other choice made for some other reason.

If your belief system is correct, then people don't choose to suffer because
they *like* it, they choose their courses of action for entirely different
reasons (to meet their own needs, whatever those might be), and the
"eternal suffering" that may result is a mere side-effect at best.

Regardless, since suffering is the consequence of the ability to feel pain,
and since the ability to feel pain is a design parameter in humans, it is
trivial for your God to arrange things so that humans do not suffer, all
*without* having any effect whatever on free will: simply redesign humans
so that they cannot feel pain.

Why is it that you obviously believe your God incapable of this?

>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:00:23 GMT

In <1992Nov13.183435.13773@csrd.uiuc.edu> skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>Keith M. Ryan makes the observation:

>>	So, I can rape all the women and young girls I want- I can kill as 
>>many people as I want, as brutally as I want to- I can steal all that I want,
>>And, I only have to honestly repent before I die to go to heaven- 
>[...]

>In a word: Yes.  As Paul says, "But where sin increased, grace
>increasd all the more...".

>"Avoiding hell" is a failure as a crime deterrent.

>BUT...

>In have noticed that there's more to Christianity than getting into
>heaven.  The Christian seeks above all to have an ongoing relationship
>with God.  Sin spoils this relationship.  In this light, "knowing God"
>becomes the deterrent against wrongdoing for the Christian.

Do you really think that is all?  What about the words of Jesus, "Not
everyone who says to me `Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven,
but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven"?

>Paul continues, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
>By no means!  We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? ...
>Count yourself dead to sin but alive to God...."

>What about the native who knows nothing of "sin" or "God"?  In my
>opinion, there is little that can be said.  Though theologians must
>surely seek some sort of answer to this question, the honest answer is
>probably, "There is no way to reach a solid conclusion."

What is YOUR interpretation of Romans 2:12-16?  It seems pretty 
clear to me, at least as to what Paul taught.

Peter Nyikos
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:59:39 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Someone a little while back wrote that Christ was being disrespectful to
His mother by calling her "woman."  I would like to say that this is probably
imposing our ideas about what we say in English on the Greek of the New
Testament.  I have even heard that this is a kind address (like ma'am?)

Link Hudson.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21522 alt.atheism:21648
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: My Views
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:25:18 GMT

In article <1egm4hINN1lt@uwm.edu> alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:
 
   [ Much naive bs deleted ]


>There is proof for evolution.  Therefore, I have no choice.  One side can
>provide proof, and the other cannot.  I'm sure this discussion has been
>beaten to death on this newsgroup, and if so, I apologize.  
>
>- Alan


  Somebody has _proof_ of a theory of evolution? I was aware there there
  were evidences that support different theories of evolution, but I wasn't
  aware of any proof's.

  Your assumption that evidence or facts consitute proof is as much
  an act of faith as any fundy christain's declarition of belief.

  Frankly, your statements so far leads one to believe that you are
  a closet christian looking for an argument. 

  What dont't you change groups and go to alt.sceptic, or alt.atheist

  and argue with people who be glad to convert you to their specific idol.

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Omniscient
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:11:08 GMT

>Jack E. King writes:
>
>>As far as Adam and Eve, their disobedience was inexcusable.  First,
>>unlike you and I, they were perfect humans.  As such, they are held
>>to a much higher standard than we are.  By the same token, they had
>>everything they could possibly want.  Anything they wanted, they had.
>>God just asked for one little thing in return.  And that simple
>>piddling little test they failed.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

Father creates from dust his children. He puts them in a huge room
filled with wonderful toys. Then he puts one still-wrapped toy in
the middle of the room, and says: Play with whatever toys you want
EXCEPT this one. Then he <gasp> leaves the room.

What do the children do? Surprise, surprise. "God", being a
dysfunctional father, SET THEM UP TO FAIL >in advance<. This
(along with much of the hebrew testament) makes "God" look
like a petty tyrant.

Dano
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:33:15 EST
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare

In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com>, Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck
Petch) says:

>In article <3123@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
>wrote:
>>
>> In article <BxtLpK.36t@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A.
>Morrell) writes:
>>
>I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
>indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted. Why are people so afraid
>to say this bluntly and truthfully? Yes it's unfashionable right now to say
>so, but it is perfectly consistent with 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
>morality and history. I stand on the side of the age-old standard. Let the
>perverts do whatever they want to in private, but they have no right to
>push their lifestyle on me or my family.

Your morality seems to be very single-minded. There are many important
moral areas besides sexuality. Let's apply the age old standards of
history and kill everyone who doesn't agree with us, or won't give us
what we want.

>Our nation has become so perverse in its thinking that the Bible is banned
>from school, yet homosexuality is welcomed.

Get a brain. Or does your cult consider thinking to be immoral as well.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ctatro@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Christopher D Tatro)
Subject: Manicheans?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:49:07 GMT

Just looking to settle a scholarly debate with an associate.  Are there still 
any Manicheans around in the 20th Century, or did the Christians wipe them out 
just like everybody else?  I know it spread to the East, but haven't been able 
to find any information on the subject.

Actually, any info on any existing Dualist religion would be just keen.

Many thanks ahead of time

kristoff
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.221023.1996@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>And what if I specifically want my somewhat insane pit bull Cujo?

I thought pit bull owners were supposed to go to hell.   :-)

	Sven
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "God" orders the execution of Isaac (i.e., he who laughs)
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:15:14 GMT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: world, public
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

>> king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:

>>Before? What makes you assume that?  It was only on rare occasions
>>that God chose to look ahead (read prophesy).  For example, at Gen 22
>>we see the account where God tests Abraham's faith by asking him to
>>offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.  God didn't choose to know this 
>>in advance.  It was only at the point of Abraham about to plunge
>>the sword into his son that he was stopped and God states "...for
>>now I do know that you are Godfearing..."

Note that it was an "angel of the lord" who did the interrupting
of the human sacrifice not "God" himself, in Gen 22, so there is
no implication for "God's" omniscience here either way.

It was "God" himself who ordered the human sacrifice, however.
Nice guy, huh? Abraham lies to his little son Isaac who is old
enough to talk, then covers him with wood, then approaches 
Isaac with fire in one hand and a knife in another, and just as 
he is about to drive the knife home <gasp>, the angel appears.

Also, the angel saying "your only son", sort of ignores Abraham's
other son, Ishamel.

Dano
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Animals and souls (was: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Summary: Can Spot be saved?
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:30:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Steve Adams states that he has a Biblical basis for his assertion that
animals do not have souls:

> But, if we take the Bible as the basis for the argument, then the statement
> stands.  Man was the only creature created in God's image and with a soul.

The problem with Mr Adams' statement, that it is NOT well based on biblical
exegesis.  On the other hand, one must refer to the original Hebrew to know
that.  So if Mr Adams will read Genesis I:21, he will find that on the 5th day
it says:

	"God created... every living creature that creepeth..."

The Hebrew word translated into "creature" is literally "nephesh" or "soul". 
In Hebrew, nephesh means "soul" and applies to all living creatures.  This is
just one example, as nephesh is used many times to describe animals in
general.  So yes Mr Adams, according to the Bible and to Hebrew, animals do
have souls.  As to whether such souls would go to a Christian heaven is an
altogether different question, but I have never seen a Biblical statement
specifically supporting either side of the issue. 

				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes 
    fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
				Charles T. Sprading
				American Writer
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:26:00 GMT

In article <74954@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <BxsEx5.3zt@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch) writes:
}|Considering the fact that the Bible's time period was well over a hundred years
}|there can't have been just one person who wrote. In fact the story of Adam & Eve
}|was before writing had been developed, therefore the story must have been past
}|down my word of mouth. Which must cause changes to occur which leads one to 
}|wonder how accurate the story can be, especially as in the time when the bible
}|was written only men were able to write and therefore it would have a sexist
}|point of view. 
}
}A couple of examples:
}
}Often in the Books of Moses (Gen - Deut) we see where it is recorded that God
}told Moses to write that down.

Naturally.  Including things that happened before he Moses was conceived and
after he died.  A true miracle, wasn't it?

}Yes, context is very important.  But trying to find meaning past what is there
}is striving in vain.  There is MUCH there that we can learn from and what is
}not there is secondary at best.

Hmmmm.  So if the attributed author could NOT have been a direct witness, but
secondary at best, we should disregard it?


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21888 alt.atheism:21914
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:43:11 EST
 <1992Nov23.055650.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1992Nov23.123455.6323@lclark.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov23.123455.6323@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> In article <1992Nov23.055650.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov23.084406.3627@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov22.211045.18408@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov22.083116.9474@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>>>>>>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>>>>>>>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!
>>> 
>>>>>>>>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>>>>>>>>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.

[lots of stuff deleted]

   Okay, now I see the problem.  You are using a different definition
of "know" than Ken and I am.  You seem to be using it in the sense of 
comprehending, while we are using the sense of having knowledge of it
as existing.  We may be able to know that God is omnipotent, etc., but
we can't comprehend omnipotence.  So in the end even if we know what
God is about we don't know how It works.  I see how it ties into the
fundies and glory as well; it wasn't clear when you brought them up
what the connection was.

> p.s.  It has been enjoyable to talk to you.  I get my names mixed up
> and everything.  I have personally noted that when people discuss verbally
> an idea and concept they don't generally make references to who said
> what....Everyone develops off of the discussion.  It evolves. 

   No kidding.  There are now at least three threads going using
this same topic.  I wonder how many people replying to it even
remember what the original post was :-)

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc