HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0rCyp.46G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes...
>Why is it that everyone believes that it was God who did the "original sin"?  

Because he ostensibly made the rules and then gave us a fundamental nature
that doesn't befit those rules.  

>God is not a Divine 
>Rapist, He does not force is love on everyone, He gives them a free choice.

That would be true only if god's existence were glaringly clear. 

******************************************************************************
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
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:18:01 GMT


In article <C0HM60.1A7I@austin.ibm.com>, jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >God has no need for our money.  God has no need of our strength.  God wants our
|> >love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by tithing and attending services,
|> >and giving of ourselves.  But these things come as a result of being a Christian.
|> >You do not become a Christian by attending services, or giving your time or your
|> >money.  You become a Christian by the grace of God, not by the labour of your
|> >hands or the sweat of your brow.  It is a gift of God that cannot be taken away.
|> 
|> You become a Christian when your mind becomes so clouded that you
|> actually believe this garbage.
|> -- 
|> John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)

Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear false
witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions.
Do you find fault with any of these?  What is wrong about being a Christian?
Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What have you got
to lose?

What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?

God loves, Man kills.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:08:09 GMT

In article <930112.141742.6U2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>[ For those who don't know, the Children of God are a Christian sect who are
>  infamous for their use of casual sex and underage sex as recruitment
>  techniques. ]

Hmmm. If they are going to try to recruit me that sounds infinitely
more interesting than the tripe pedaled by most Xian sects. Is this
the same "Children of God" as the hippie bunch of the late '60s?
What are the up to these days? Where can I find some of their
evangelists? (Serious questions - the first two, anyway.)

Bill Mayne
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:26:10 CST

p00261@psilink.com ("Robert Knowles") writes:
: >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.
: 
: 

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God, what use is it ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:48:51 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <C0EF2M.BD0@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>Even if there was a god, or gods, why would it want to be worshipped?
>I would think that it/they have more interesting things to do than
>muck about with a little mud ball named Earth.  
>

*If* there were a god, or gods, what makes you think you'd be able to
understand it much less relate to it?

-- 
 -|:..Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org          TCOC: Public Access..:|-
  -|:..........................................................:|-
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25875 talk.religion.misc:26059
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:27:49 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1ivqk9INNpfq@lindy.Stanford.EDU> charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.004721.22541@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1ivns5INNot6@lindy.Stanford.EDU> charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
>>But this is where the analogy goes badly wrong. God allegedly is
>>omniscient and therefore KNEW that Adam and Eve would disobey.
>I'm not knowledgeable enough to assume he KNEW Adam and Eve would
>disobey.  God is certainly omniscient to know what the range of
>possibilities are.
That doesn't strike me as particularly omniscient. Being a little
omniscient strikes me as a bit like a little bit pregnant.

> It's stretching to say he knew that they'd do
>wrong.
I don't see why. We are talking, after all, about a guy who
had this whole resurrection thing planned way in advance
(allegedly back when Psalms was written), not to mention
knowing not only that Peter would deny him, but that he
would deny him THREE TIMES before the cock crowed. And
you're telling me that someone capable of this kind
of foreknowledge couldn't figure out that Adam and Eve would
disobey him. That's pretty weak, don't you think?


> I know it's a possibility that my children might get into the
>booze while I'm gone.  That's not the same as saying I knew they'd get
>into it.  I'm cynical enough to assume some might or will get into
>what they ought not.  That's far from saying I know with absolutely
>and unqualified certainty that everyone will.
Are you God?

>Also, since God
>possesses the attribute of absolute power, it is clear that God may
>choose to not know the outcome.  Therefore, it doesn't wash that he
>knew they'd make the choice they made.
That's just as bad. God intentionally refused to check something
he was easily capable of knowing and therefore permitted Adam
and Eve to condemn billions of humans to damnation? You think
that's any more morally acceptable?
-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.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25852 talk.religion.misc:26036
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:50:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <cu87wB6w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

>        You ask for the unreasonable. One does not attempt to prove a
>negative assertion. Standards of evidence apply to positive assertions
>about the existence of entities.

It's very common for people to claim that it is impossible
to prove the nonexistence of an entity. Given the universal nature
of this calim, a single counterexample disproves it. Thus:

(Assuming Euclidean geometry)

A circle has no vertices, by definition.

A rectangle has four vertices, by definition.

Therefore, there is no object in Euclidean space that is both a
circle and a rectangle.

Therefore it is possible to prove the nonexistence of an entity
(suitably chosen).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:15:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1993Jan7.000554.5134@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.190706.20382@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, 
> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

(nasty deletion)
> I've never been omnipotent.  How would I know what God wants?  IMHO, I think
> God created us because He was lonely and needed loving companions.

      An omniscient, omnipresent, omniwhatnot creature - being LONELY?
Would you please excuse me while I go whack my mind back into shape - I
think it just warped.

> He did not
> want robots or pets to provide Him with company.  He wanted loving companions
> who would choose to be with Him.  Think about it.  Would you tolerate someone
> who was an enemy in your house?

      Think about it. Would you create them there in the first place -
knowing, as you would, that they would become your enemies? Or are you
claiming God had no choice when She created everything?

>> Reason isn't very nice, warm or cuddly by comparison, but it doesn't have
>> the same propensity to collapse on your head when the stress of holding
>> together a teetering tower of mutually dissonant concepts -- without
>> letting on to yourself that you're doing so -- finally becomes too much
>> for our [thankfully less than omnipotent] brains to bear.
>
> Reason and logic.  We are not Vulcans.  We have emotions and, yes, sometimes
> feelings are not reasonable and not logical.

      And thank goodness for that, too. But when my emotions tell me to
accept something completely illogical, unreasonable, unproven,
unsupported, and apparently slightly insane, then I throw my feelings
overboard. So shoot me.

> My faith is not based solely on
> feelings and flowery passages.  Having been a sinner for 25 years and a 
> believer for 6 years, my faith is based on personnal experience.

      If that said experience can't be objectively confirmed, repeated
under controlled laboratory circumstances, then what is there to make it
any better than subjective feelings and flowery passages?

> I have
> felt God's presence and heard His voice. He is real! He is real! Jesus lives!

      You'd be amazed at what some people feel and hear under the
influence of LSD. Are those things "real" or "alive"?

> God loves, man kills.
Of course, the reverse also applies.

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
     ===>The Truth is still the Truth, even if you choose to ignore it.<===
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:26:53 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.

 Sure, god has done it for all time. So why not make more gods? But
anyway...

>Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
>knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
>all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  

 So God took responsibility for the pain and suffering involved, right?

>   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,

 (Say, why *is* there "one and only" one Son? Why not a couple of Daughters?
Maybe a Nephew or two? What I'm jocularly getting at is the "Why not make
lots of perfect beings from the start?" question posed above.)

>Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
>choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  
>    Maybe I'm being too simplistic.  I don't post too often but I am a firm
>believer and I just couldn't stand by silent in admidst this debate.  I don't
>mean to flame anyone.  After all, Jesus came into this world to save not to
>condemn.  And in His likeness, I would not do the same.
>    I welcome your response.

 Here's my problem with the whole idea. Let's assume that eating fruit will
corrupt people, or at least doing it against orders will. (Yes, I know this
may not be *literally* eating fruit, but hey..)
 Now...
 1) *I* didn't eat any "fruit of knowledge of good and evil." I just had a
banana, but I don't think that counts. Am I being held responsible for
something I didn't do? What about Deuteronomy 24:16... "Fathers shall 
not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for
their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." I refuse to take
responsibility for an action that I could not prevent.
 2) Okay, maybe the act of eating the fruit, through some kind of "spiritual
genetics," made the decendants corrupt, too. But... god must have set up
the laws regarding that. Why make a whole *race* fallen if one falls?
How about starting off each kid from scratch? It happened in the cases of
Adam, Eve, and maybe even Mary if certain circles are given credence.
Why not do it for everyone and give each person the choice about rebelling
or not?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
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
	<SCG.93Jan4185701@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <7gc=Bc@engin.umich.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:26:08 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>>i challenge your claim that you love homosexuals.  how do you show
>>this love?

>Well, now, I don't claim to agree with this, but I read C. S. Lewis
>claiming that it was certainly possible to hate things that you
>yourself do while still loving yourself, and Christians are commanded
>to love neighbors as themselves...

i am not claiming that it is impossible to 'love the sinner but hate
the sin' (although that would be a meritorious topic for discussion).
i am asking mr. muehlhausen to show that he in fact does love at least
one homosexual while hating the sin of homosexual intercourse, by
showing what act of love he has engaged in with respect to that
homosexual.

without such evidence, all i have is mr. muehlhausen's glib assertion
that he does such, and, frankly, i can't accept that on mere
assertion.
--
The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
	-- Abraham Lincoln
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Jerry, George, and Cover-ups (was Re: Immoral Jerry Fallwel)
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:05:58 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>     Jerry  doesn't  care  about  the 1,500  dead  civilians  from
>     "Operation Just Cause" (Panamanian invasion) whos only reason
>     for being killed by American soldiers is because they were in
>     the way. Nor does Jerry care about the five-to-one wounded of
>     civilians to combatants in the Panama invasion. Jerry doesn't
>     care about the coverup that followed the American bombing  of
                     ~~~~~~~
>     the Tropic Hotel in Panama.
>
Must have been a good one, there is no citiation for this one.  And
I never heard about it.
 
>     Jerry  ignores  200,000  dead in  the  recent  Oil  War  with
>     Hussein, where George Bush did everything possible to prevent
>     the  Soviet  negotiation that would have lead to a  peaceful,
                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     face-saving  pullout  of Iraqi forces from  Kuwait.  Official
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [1]
>     American body count of US forces is 23--- Commanded Brets  of
>     US  34Th. MASH unit reported personally putting in body  bags
>     60  dead  American  boys in the FIRST  HOUR:  where  are  the
                                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     missing bodies? Why was the 34Th's medical records taken away
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [2]
>     AT  GUN POINT, only to vanish somewhere on the trip from  the
>     Middle East to Washington?
>
Again, no citation for these alegations (specifically about the 60
bodies in the first hour and the medical records.)

1.  Being the Omniscient person that you are, I am now assured about
the real story.  I now know that the Soviet proposal would definately,
most assuredly, and conclusively averted the whole thing and that we'd
have peace, safety, and a kinder, gentler world had the negotiations
continued.  Oh, it's also nice to know for sure and undoubtedly that 
George was actually trying to stop the Soviet negotiations and that 
you provide such convincing evidence of it.  I'm sure glad we have you 
keeping up on foreign policy--keep up the good work.

2.  Humm...We have such a big stink in the US about POW-MIAs from Viet
Nam, don't 'cha think we'd have a stink about (at least) 40 missing
persons?  Think about it.  If there were 40 people missing, at least
40 someone's in this country would be asking questions.  How come there
isn't anything in the papers about Gulf War MIAs?  Could it be that
everyone is accounted for?  Surely not...  As for these medical records
do tell where your information comes from.  Please don't keep us in
darkness, oh, Omniscient One.

You don't happen to be related to Oliver Stone would you?  ;)

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25539 talk.religion.misc:25702 alt.pagan:15170
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:40:08 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <2cXg02FY31Oh01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
|> In article <root.726530815@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> >
|> >Your comments on theism/atheism and theistic/non-theistic state seem to
|> >support my point.  If the governemnt *forbids* religion from PBS, that is
|> >promoting non-religion over religion.  In other words, all views, except
|> >religious ones are permitted, and religious ones are excluded.  Hardly in
|> >line with the 1st Amendment.
|> 
|> No, it just isn't mentioning religion. If the government allows programs
|> that say "we don't believe in god(s)" that would be promoting non-religion.
|> By not allowing either, they are in line with the first amendment.
|> 
|> Why do some believers think that not mentioning religion at all is the
|> same as denying religion?

I often wonder how Americans ever got themselves into this pickle over
what could and could not be "allowed" over the airwaves in the first place.

I listen to BBC shortwave on a regular basis: just because I live in the
US, I don't see why I should live in total ignorance as well.    The BBC
don't seem to have any trouble interviewing atheists, Cardinals, Bishops,
or the Dalai Lama, and even having a five minute religious "spot" after 
the nin-o'clock news.

One evening some Buddhist will be talking about non-attachment, the next
evening some Anglican nun will be talking about working in Africa, and the
next evening some Catholic priest will be talking about working in inner
cities.   And so on, everyone gets a turn.   No word from the followers
of the great Zarquon yet.

And it doesn't seem to bother anyone at all.  It certainly doesn't bother
me, a long-time atheist, because I know that the BBC is simply transmitting
this stuff.     So what exactly is America's problem with all this?   Isn't 
it a little ironic that the country with the First Amendment is also the 
country where attempts to regulate the airwaves lead to constant fights 
alleging censorship and counter-censorship?

Personally, I think that regulating the airwaves lends the airwaves an
air of "officialdom" that they simply don't deserve.

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:50:07 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1ivciaINNf9e@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM (John Birge) writes:
|> Allen Ethridge writes :
|> 
|> >Drug use is not sin, and murder sometimes has its place.  However, drug abuse
|> >nd violence are not a result of moving away from God, they are the result
|> >of overpopulation, poverty, poor health and nutrition, ecological problems,
|> >etc.  They have natural, not spiritual, causes.
|> 
|> 
|> OK For sake of arguement I'll buy that assertion. Now explain compassion,
|> love, or self awareness.
|> 
|> Explain the man that helped half a dozen survivors of a plane crash free
|> themselves from a freezing river losing his life in process. 
|> 
|> I could go on but you get the gist of the question.

Well, he might, but I don't.   What's the connection?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc