HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:35:12 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
>LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

As a friend, named Noah, once said to me, "Why is it Christains always say
there's only three choices, and you have to pick one of them?"  It falls
into the common trap of claiming that when you eliminate the other two
options, the third must be true.  However you are just ignoring, or don't
realize that there are various other alternatives as well.

>The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of
>skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who
>said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off
>as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the
>intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in
>agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
>
>To Jesus, who men and women believed him to be was of fundamental
>importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what he claimed about
>himself, one couldn't conclude he was just a good moral man or
>prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual,and Jesus never
>intended it to be. 
>
>Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His

According to the Gospels.  Of course that leaves other options open, like
the gospels were a complete fabrication, or the writers were mistaken or
confused about Jesus' claims.

>claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be

Or made by someone else, and not him.

>given serious consideration. Jesus' question to his disciples, "But
>who do you say that I am?" has several alternatives.
>
>WAS HE A LIAR?
[Much ramblings deleted...]

This part of the argument hits two major flaws that I can come up with off
the top of my head.  1)  Makes a BIG assumption that the Gospels are
accurate.  2)  It paints the possibility of Jesus being a liar as Jesus
intentionally pulling off the BIGGEST lie in the world.  This certianly need
not be the case.  It could have been just a small lie to a small group of
people; he made a mistake and got his ass crucified, and then his
disciples just spread the lie, as a assumed truth, and got bigger than
anyone could have ever imagined.


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: MISQUOTED, MISUNDERSTOOD, OR MISSING? (was LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:33:50 GMT


In reply to the usual "lord, liar, or lunatic" dirge,
I point out some more possibilities:

Misquoted:
    Jesus didn't claim to be the son of god; he was misquoted.

Misunderstood:
    Jesus didn't claim to be the son of god; he was misunderstood.

Missing:
    Jesus didn't exist any more than Hercules.

Since the LLorL argument depends on a false trichotomy, I don't even
have to prove any of these assertions, only point out their existence,
and the LLorL argument falls apart (as it depends on three, and only
three, possibilities).

QED
FAQ

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.222046.7261@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:



 >Just reading the posts on Jesus' claims to be God...especially the quotation:
 >"Before Abraham was, I am!"
 >Has anybody but me noticed that that sounds remarkably like the kind of
 >statements attributed to the Buddha? 
 >"In all the heavens and the earth, I alone am the Honored One!"

  You are right that there is a resemblance between these statements,
and it would be interesting if there are also Christians who read the
words attributed to Jesus as compatible with his being no different
from anybody else. According to Conze there are clear indications that
the authors of the Gospels had been exposed to Buddhist notions -
perhaps Mike Siemon or somebody knows more about this?
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:40:41 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <RLK.92Aug28102012@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
<In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
<
<     the forgiveness is free and undeserved, accepting jesus has costs.
<   like enduring the scorn of skeptics in here.  :)
<
<Get real.  No one's forcing you to keep posting here.

His connexion to jesus is.  Posting here is part of accepting jesus:
if he doesn't try to convert us, his acceptance of jesus will be invalid.
I suppose a proselytiser who constantly gets flamed on alt.atheism
is considered a martyr and directly admitted to Heaven.  Or?

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:57:14 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Supreme Being

There was a short story I once read by Isaac Asimov (actually, there are many s
hort stories of his that I read, but at the moment this one comes to mind).
It dealt with an atheist dying and his "soul" which he did not believe existed
"lived" on.  He meets "God," and "God" tells him that the only reason that he's
 still conscious is because he (God) likes the way this atheist thinks.  God te
lls him that his purpose from then till eternity is to think as perhaps this Go
d does not know something and thinks that this atheist may come upon something
that he (God) doesn't know.  To make a short story brief, the atheist does not
like the idea of "thinking" for eternity and begins to think of a way to kill
this God.  That's the end there.  BUT, throughout this story it becomes evident
 that this God is infinitely intelligent and knows "everything" or practically
everything. The exception to God's knowledge is: how to die (i.e. God die).
The point is that this God has no purpose to "live" and is obviously bored out
of its infinitely intelligent mind.  Thus, all God seeks is its own death; but
since it doesn't how to go about "killing" itself, it created the universe with
 lifeforms capable of independant thought.  God then selects the "best" thinker
s after their death to continue "living."  Obviously, none of these life forms
wish to live eternally and decide to think of how to "kill" this God, Thus doin
g exactly what God wishes them to.

If you made this far, congrats.  I don't exactly express my self with the utmos
t clarity.

What do think and have you read this?

<TACHYON>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: assholes
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 23:45:53 GMT

In article <j1moody-010992233350@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>,
j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
|>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
|>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
|>
|>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
|>
|>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
|>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
|>
|>You'd have to be an asshole.
         
This is not a flame on the sender (who is an asshole :)
This is a flame on those flaming the sender.
If you read the header info (which, after the Survey mess, I 
would think more people would do) the article is obviously a joke.
eg.
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Organization: Yo mama

The sender was only getting your goat.  Any responces would
be appreciated or ignored by the sender.  Don't waste your time.
Respond to me via e-mail, as this is going into my KILL file, 
right next to Survey.

Brian /-|-\
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

[I quoted myself from an old posting]
>}#>>>Consider a similar scenario for God.  He wants for humans to have free
>}#>>>will.  Suppose he also wants an accurate Bible, but that conflicts
>}#>>>with his other want.  He must choose.

>AT which point you continue that specific argument.

Yes.

>  Why don't you give the
>entire contradiction I pointed out?

As it was based on your misunderstanding the above as a claim, the
essence of the presumed contradiction is not important.

>  Since you now claim awareness, 
>please state which:

>1. Your hypothesis, as stated, is wrong.
>2. There is no fr** will.
>3. There never has been Jesus.
>4. Jesus is NOT an accurate representation of Gods will (paraphrased.  Please
>   correct if relevant).

You still don't get it.  My supposition above is not a hypothesis.  It
is a hypothetical situation constructed for a single purpose (which
was to refute something claimed by another poster).  It was not a
statement of reality, nor of belief.  It was not a claim of any sort.
Until you express to me that you understand this, I will not pursue
the matter any further.

Gregg Skinner

P.S. I am not inclined to have much patience with Mr. Meritt because
of our past exchanges on this matter.  Here is an example:

(>>>>>>>>me, >>>>>Mr. Meritt, etc.)

>>>>>>>>Consider a similar scenario for God.  He wants for humans to have free
>>>>>>>>will.  Suppose he also wants an accurate Bible, but that conflicts
>>>>>>>>with his other want.  He must choose.
>>>>
>>>>>Why should this be true?
>>>>
>>>>Why should what be true?  Please be more specific.  I'll reserve
>>>>comment of what appears below until I am clear what is being
>>>>addressed, except for one note.
>>
>>>Exactly what I quoted and reproduced word per word.  If you don't understand
>>>it, ask the author.  Opps, sorry.  You ARE the author.
>>
>>Just give me exactly what you mean by "this" in 
>>
>What are you having trouble understanding?  I've quoted you twice.  THAT IS
>THE THIIS
>  As I've asked a number of times now.

--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:25:44 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania

In article <1992Aug28.210240.185391@zeus.calpoly.edu>, skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
> 
> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >[Bible quotes from Mikel's friend, trying to show Jesus did claim he was
> God, deleted.]
> 
> Funny, these, and a few other quotes I've been given in support of his
> making this claim all seem to come from John alone.  Is there nothing in the
> other Gospels?

The fact that most of this material comes from John is probably due to it being
the last of the cononical gospels to be written. By the time John was written
christianity had finished turning a faith healer and preacher into the jewish
messiah and had begun the process of turning him into a graeco-roman god-man.

I asked joyce to give me some quotes from the synoptic gospels which show Jesus
claimed to be God, but so far her (?) silence has been thunderous. I asked the
christians on talk.religion.misc to do the same, but they failed as well. You
would think this would tell them something wouldn't you?

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil of the Net
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:20:12
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<sbuckley.714450274@sfu.ca> <ksand-240892175909@wintermute.apple.com>
	<sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:48:02 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

     the forgiveness is free and undeserved, accepting jesus has costs.
   like enduring the scorn of skeptics in here.  :)

Get real.  No one's forcing you to keep posting here.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:12:47 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <1992Sep2.220150.2279@cco.caltech.edu> Keith Allan Schneider writes:

-Allen Ethridge:
>>Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?
-Keith Allan Schneider:
>Some people need the comfort against the envirnoment.  Some people need
>to be assured that they will be eternally happy [...]. Some people want
>to feel happy when someone dies...
>
Some people simply feel that that's how the world is: With God...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: v126hqpj@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philip S Piasecki)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Help References Wanted!!!!!!
Keywords: Bible, references, free-will, determinism
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Does anyone have a list of Biblical references that
pertain to free-will/determinism?  If so I would 
greatly appreciate a copy!

Thanks,
Phil
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:12:20 GMT

Graham Matthews writes

>>Nothing,if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
>>nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
>>likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-
>>limited sensors.

>Can you back up the claim that the senses have limited band-width?

Well, I can't see infrared or X-rays with my unaided eyes. I can use
instruments to extend my vision, but I don't see how we'll ever
perceive with unlimited bandwidth, or know that we are doing so. 

>>Ever looked at [life]? I mean, pulled your nose out of the books and looked
>>at it? What _isn't_ marvelously complex about it? Are you serious?

>Pete you may be confusing variety with complexity. Think about it!

Something capable of producing the variety we see in life would have
to be fairly complex, if not in its components, at least in its
operation. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: CS19243001D@LUST2.LATROBE.EDU.AU (SEZGIN, BILAL)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: jl
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:12:44 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

we have more influence than the church.
            john lennon
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:29:52 GMT


How stupid.  Why would anyone think that these are the only alternatives?
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Virgin Goddess ....
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:55:55 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep1.175355.24369@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.165250.14591@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>BTW, I heard on the radio this morning (normal secular radio,
>>mind you) that JC and his mom made an appearance yesterday
>>somewhere in Kentucky.  Lots of people claimed to see the
>>wonderful apparition.  When one of the lucky viewers was 
>>asked why some people saw the sight and others did not,
>>the answer was that you had to be a believer to see it.
>
>Yes, I saw this on the local news last night. They interviewed some of
>the people who "saw" the Virigin Mary and, of course, they gave completely
>different descriptions of what she looked like.
>
>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com

In that case how did they know (seriously)?

Chris Lee
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:07:33 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




Re: Bible Numerics


I'll be jiggered, it's finally proven. 


I convert!!! I convert!!!



(yeesh...)


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Has anybody seen that dang Deus Absconditus?
From: skaamjm@ucl.ac.uk (Matthew Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Take Your God And ....
Keywords: God
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:46:42 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

>In article <10594@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In article <nkjn_mb@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>>She [_sc._ Athena] was one of
>>>three goddesses deemed "the virgin goddesses" with Artemis (who turned
>>>a man into a stag to be hunted by her hounds for having the audacity to
>>>look upon her nude body while she bathed in a stream) being another.
>>>I want to say that Hera is the third, but I'm under the impression
>>>that Hephaestus was her child...

>>Yes, at least he, and I think there used to be others as well.

>He's the only one that comes springing to mind by name.  I do recall
>that Hera was often very jealous of Zeus' children getting so much
>special attention whereas her children were often overlooked,
>sometimes even tortured, by Zeus.

>>>which leads me to think it's Proserpina.

>>You mean Persephona.  We should be consistent here.

>Yes!  My mother is probably spinning in her grave right now.  I should
>know better than to mix Roman and Greek names.


>>I don't know what kind of virgin she would have made - I don't remember
>>Hades having sons or daughters, but both his brothers had a huge lot,
>>so it would be strange if he had none.

>Well, it's the fact that I can't think of her having any that leads me
>to believe that she didn't.  The fact that his brothers had a huge lot
>really isn't of any importance considering that a) Poseidon doesn't
>have a "wife" the way Zeus and Hades do, and b) Zeus had a lot of
>children, but not too many by Hera.

>It's interesting to talk about Persephone as there is a link between
>her and the cult of the Virgin Mary (I do not use "cult" as in the
>Moonies but in the history of the mythos of what is at present the
>Virgin Mary...for a very good account of this cult, see _Alone of All
>Her Sex:  The Cult of the Virgin Mary._)

>Persephone is the wife of Hades and, as such, is the Queen of the
>Underworld.  This has a direct link to current Christian teachings
>that one method of salvation from Hell is to have the Virgin Mary
>grant absolution...thus making her the Queen of Hell.

>And it is part of this direct link that makes me think that Persephone
>is the third of the triad of virgin goddesses of the Greek pantheon.

'The Golden Fleece' and 'THe Greek myths', bith by Robert GRaves, are
useful here. He describes the Triple Goddess as the personification of
three states of womanhood: maiden ("virgin" in your terminlogy),
mature woman, and crone.
The names the Goddess took varied, particularly with locality, but the
'virgin' designation was principally to the 'maiden' form, such as Dianna,
but not to Hera, or Hecate.

This is from memory, so apologies for innaccuracies, I am posting to
point out a useful reference.
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 20:07:59 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

	Why is it that throughout the Gospels Jesus, when questioned whether
he is the Messiah, repeatedly does not say "YES!", but instead demurs with
some comment like "Those are your words" or something along that line?  If
Jesus was the Messiah, he ought to have had the courage to say so!
	Why is it that Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see
the end of the world in their lifetimes?  Did the world end, and did we just
miss it?  Was Jesus wrong?  Or did the evangelists just invent this
prophecy?  In my mind, there is little better evidence that Jesus did not
view himself as modern Christians view him.
	The fact is that it is inconceivable that the Gospels accurately
report Jesus' teachings.  I believe that the evidence supports the opinion that
Jesus did not believe himself to be God and did not claim to be God.  Nor did
he claim to be the Messiah.  (I might point out that the term "Son of God" is
used in the Old Testament in a much different sense that the Christian usage,
and is used in a manner consistent with Jesus' sayings.)  Later writers
(Paul and the evangelists, mostly) have twisted Jesus to serve their own
ends.
	If it seems unlikely to you that anyone could do this, consider that
John the Baptist's followers claimed after his death that HE has risen from
the dead, blah blah blah, much the same as Jesus' followers later claimed.

-Scott Oser
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:48:16 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

djohn@maths.tcd.ie (Derek John) writes:


>I'm interested to know how atheists cope with death.If youre like me
>and believe that death means the total extinction of consciousness
>how do you cope with it?I mean it scares the shit out of me to think
>that in say 40 or 50 years time (maybe tomorrow) I am going to cease 
>to exist in the most final and irreversible sense,and that ultimately
>if you pursue atheism to its logical conclusion life becomes ultimately
>futile,meaningless and insignificant.This is something I just cant come
>to terms with and so most of the time I try not to think about it.
>I would be very interested to hear other peoples views on this.
>                     
Death itself, oblivion, the end, nothingness etc doesn't bother me at
all. The pain and suffering that may well accompany the last few moments
does! Still, there's no way round it.

As to life being futile and meaningless - in the sense of no god, plan,
judgement, afterlife etc I really don't see why it's important to have a
meaning at all. We are really just little insignificant specs in the cosmos
and if we aught to accept that and not invent some importance just to
make ourselves feel better. And besides, making the world better for those
who come after is a comforting form of lasting effect, even if one is
not around to see it.

One can find secular meaning and purpose in many things. Music, art, love,
friendship, justice etc can all move a person greatly without any
reference outside to some other power that has incorporated these things
into a larger plan.

Life and death will be OK as long as you all try not to be bastards to
each other. No god or soul, just human emotions.