HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.201719.449@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>
>How about when we talk about a fundie, we mean one of those people
>that jump up and down screaming....
>
>And when we talk about a fundamentalist, we mean one of those people
>who believes in the literal intrepretation of the Bible.  I know,
>the word fundamentalist causes undo wear on the keyboard, but the
>distinction is important to me, and should be important to y'all as
>well.  (The dictionary definition.)  This does not mean that a 
>fundamentalist cannot be a fundie, and vice versa, in which case I
>would label the person as a fundie (since a fundie is obnoxious,
>and does not give a good image to fundamentalists).
>
>From now on, I promise to draw this distinction between a fundie and
>fundamentalist.
>

	Sounds good to me,  I work with many people who would be fundamentalist
by this description,  they have never bothered me or attempted to convert me.
Unfortunately many of these same people would seek to get laws enacted that
would curtail my freedom or those of my friends because of their religious
values,  that makes them "fundies" in many respects.  I wish we could come
up with nice categories for everybody unfortunately people can only be
categorised from personal experience.

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Summary: So what
Reply-To: nik@ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:12:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.144203.3398@b11.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) writes:
> In article <4373.29E152E1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> |>  
> |> Which blatant miracles are we talking about? I don't count the Bible,
> |> because I hardly view it as an objective source for facts :) Sort of
> |> like reading Pravda in the Good Ol' Days about the Cold War.
> |>  
> 
> 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.

	Since so much of the Bible is essentially unverifiable and more than
a little incredible IMHO,  anybody accepting it as "completely accurate
and reliable" is making making a major leap of faith.

> 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.
> 

	Many scholars accept that the Homeric stories of the fall of Troy are
quite accurate in depicting the events of the time,  that doesn't mean that
all the references to Zues etc. should be regarded in the same light.

> a couple hundred years of when the events occurred, and often sooner.
> Other major non-biblical writings which many of us accept as reliable were
> written many hundreds of years after the fact.

	Which books pre-dating the Bible were you thinking of ?
> 
> McDowell has numerous references to other works which support his findings.
> The book that I mentioned is written in outline form, making it more
> suitable for research.
> 

	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.
-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
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: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:17:10 GMT

In article <6lwPq*oI0@presto.UUCP>, random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) writes:
|> In article <4271.29D8B785@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian Walters writes:
|> > We need to get a dyed-in-the-wool atheist around here.
|> 
|> What kind of Atheist do you want?  I can be the kind, tolorent
|> soul who will let you talk about your god till your blue the
|> face.  Always listening, but never disagreeing just never
|> agreeing.

I agree with Christian Walters when he said that kind of Atheist is
merely a spectator.

|> Or I can be cold, sience type that will attack your beliefs with
|> everything in my arsenal.  Cut your every word to ribbons with no
|> remorse for your feelings.

Go ahead, attack my beliefs, see how I stand up.  You are already
off to a poor start.  My feelings are not at stake here.

|> Your call:)

Pick a topic, let's get going.  However, if you want to start a
flame-fest with me, you'll be disappointed.

-- 
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: wilsonk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Wilson)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.195808.26308@infonode.ingr.com>, jimc@cobabe.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jim Cobabe) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.181820.21199@infonode.ingr.com>, wilsonk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Wilson) writes:
> |> I used to live in a "gang free" neighborhood.  The high-school gangs didn't
> |> have names either.  Both events have changed.  Being "more tolerant"
> |> only encourages more of the same.  
> 
> I was offering this as a humorous suggestion.  Advocating tolerance for
> "alternative lifestyles" is very popular with some people these days.
> 
> |> The problem is that problem children usually come from neglectful/abusive 
> |> parents and/or broken families.  The question is: is it cheaper to let the
> |> government raise these children OR let the government house these children
> |> in prisons when they become adults.  Either way: the taxpayers lose because
> |> the parents shunned THEIR responsiblities.  No, you cant blame the schools 
> |> because the teacher is not responsible for developing the CHARACTER and
> |> DISCIPLINE outside the classroom...
> 
> Great.  Now, which ones should we turn over to the government camps?
> Which parents are the neglectful ones?  Who gets the responsibility to
> decide?  Perhaps a committee of Christian fundamentalists?  :-)
> 
> What will the government provide for these "neglected" children that the
> parents were so lacking?  Perhaps the government can provide love and
> nurturing better than the natural parents.  I don't think so.
> 
> *****************************************************************
> | Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
> *****************************************************************

Good job, Jim.  You've captured the true point of my short sermon:
There is NO solution.  This planet is not perfect.  If it was:

1) we wouldn't be here (at least yet)
2) the problems wouldn't be here
3) ozone depletion wouldn't be an issue...

Keith (still going... Ban roll on (or some such commercial)) Wilson

PS: Happy Easter.

PSS: How did a stupid bunny ever get associated with the RESURRECTION (sp)?


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 19:29:26 GMT

In article <4463.29E9A217@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|>  
|> But isn't a sermon simply a way of bending people to your own point of
|> view? (i.e. that you should accept God) Nothing I ever heard at a church
|> was presented as opinion, and they never pointed out sources that
|> disagree with the conclusions.

Then it might be time to find a different church.  I'm not saying to look
for a church until you find one that believes what you want it to, but
look for a church that is able to rationally discuss _any_ question you
ask of it.

|> I can't speak for all churches, but the one I used to go to had a pastor
|> that would bend any sermon (and every sermon) to a plea for money. He
|> was very subtle about it, but it was there.

I hate that too.

|> >My source says that the archeological digings show that the walls fell
|> >down in an unnatural way.  They were knocked down quite flat, so the
|> >city could be easily invaded.
|>  
|> How many "natural" ways are there for an army to knock a wall down? :)
|> Not many armies in history have been patient enough to let erosion do
|> the work for them.
|>  
|> Also, I don't know a lot about sonics, but wouldn't they tend to shatter
|> a stone wall, instead of knocking them down "quite flat"?

It would also render all inhabitants within hundreds of miles deaf from
the noise (I assume that you are saying the noise of the trumpets etc.
had enough energy to break down the walls).  This (at least at that time)
is one of those (can I say it?) miracles.

|> >We have been quite civil here.  And this has forced me to (try to)
|> >support my beliefs.
|>  
|> Ditto, even though I am intruding uninvited on this particular one :)

Uninvited?  This is a public forum.

|> The best thing you can do for your beliefs is try to defend them to a
|> non-believer. If the beliefs fail, you're better off, but if they stand,
|> they stand firmer. Also, I've noticed myself that these arguments also
|> make my agnosticism stronger :)

I don't claim to be a master of defense, and I have proved that I am not.
At least I'm trying :-).

|> --  
|>  * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.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: That sin thing
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:58:24 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>> What do we provide him? What needs of his do we fill?
 
>How about companionship?  Perhaps God has a need to be loved.  Perhaps
>God likes a challenge, so He challenged Himself with the task of
>creating imperfect beings that would be able to relate to him.  The
>Bible says that mankind's purpose is to bring pleasure to God.
 
Maybe. That's what the Greek gods needed, so why not this one? :) What
happens if we all eventually turn away? This may happen, since
Christianity is neither the largest nor the fastest-growing religion.
Will he smite the tar out of everyone, or will he fade off like Zeus?
 
>We aren't able to fully understand God.  My daughter isn't able to
>fully understand me.  While we're at it, I don't fully understand my
>wife. Yet the relationships exist.
 
None of you are infinite :) Y'see, not only do I think it's impossible
to fully understand an infinite thing, I think it's impossible to
understand it AT ALL. The mind can't cope with the vastness of it, the
limitless possibilities of it all. That's why people create things like
purposes and commandments, to get something they can grasp out of it. In
my opinion, anyway. I also think that's why people make a god that is so
anthrocentric (is that a word? It should be), so they can feel a part of
something infinite, instead of nothing, which anything compared to
infinity is.
 
People compare the God-Man relationship to that of Parent-Child, but
this doesn't fit with established ideas. It would be more like
Human-Dust Mite, except the dust mite in this case is infinitely larger
than we are comapred to an infinite god.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 18:23:06 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>Parenting skills are largely cultural in nature.  People must learn
>these skills from somewhere, they are not entirely intuitive.  A
>propoganda campaign might help instill in people the desire to learn
>parenting skills.
 
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that was Jim Cobabe, the Super Dave of
the computers who wishes to change society! For his encore, he'll move
Mount Everest using just his tongue :)
 
What sort of propaganda did you have in mind? Billboards? Burma-shave
signs? Dropping leaflets out of airplanes?
 
>I was not suggesting a solution for those who are already firmly
>entrenched in perpetuating the problems.  Perhaps the only quick method
>of "curing" these ills is a flood of biblical proportions.  Oops,
>sorry, how about a large volcanic eruption?  :-)
 
Heh heh heh heh heh. I guess we won't have any more teenage delinquency
if we don't have any more teenagers :)
 
>> And I'm still stumped about how to stop teenage pregnancy.
 
>Government-mandated chastity belts?  :-)
 
Aw, what's the point? They'd work as well as the B-2 bomber, and
we'd get another baby boom :)
 
>I heard a discussion on NPR the other morning about a state proposal
>to mandate birth control for welfare recipient women who are single
>parents.  They were talking about NORPLANT implants which last
>for about five years.  Maybe this is the kind of social program you
>would advocate.  I sure hope not. :-(
 
I'm *stunned* that your opinion of me has fallen that low, without my
even trying! I'm afraid I can't condone mandatory birth control any more
than I could condone mandatory abortions. (Oooh.. there's a thought
that'll get you lynched :) ) Forcing abstinence isn't the answer. I
don't know what the answer is, but that ain't it. :)
 
Maybe big tax breaks for couples with less than 3 kids :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
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: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:17:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.174950.11730@b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr9.134015.25029@b11.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) writes:
|> 
|> > Can you point me to some sources that prove the Bible unreliable? 
|> 
|> Easily - the bible claims that the world was created in 7 days. There is not,
|> and never has been, enough energy in the entire universe to even create one
|> planet (let alone a multitude of stars and galaxies) in such a short time.

OK, I'll ask the obvious.  Just how much energy does it take to create a planet
in such a short time?

While I'm busy asking obvious questions, let me add one more.  How much energy
is there in the entire universe?

|> In the 1800's, someone (I forget who) went through your bible and found strong
|> support for BOTH sides of every major issue of the day (slavery, imperialism,
|> etc.) Can it really be literally true everywhere with that level of 
|> contradiction?

Does it really have that level of contradiction?  I would like to see some
of the examples.  If pressed, I might be able to make a naive person think
the Bible speaks favorably about adultery, but to do so I would have to take
things out of context and not tell the whole story.

-- 
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: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.191205.3634@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>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 

	No it doesn't,  there are many writing from ancient history which
have passages and sections that correspond to archeological evidence, those
books are also full of the most obvious hogwash.  Its not the historical
parts of the Bible that are the problem.

>|> 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.
>

	And equally many people *accept* it without considering the evidence,
either position is equally untenable.
-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition (was Re: Christian Bashing)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:54:46 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Sorry about the delay in answering this latest batch of messages. I've
just started dating this new person, and I am stunned to find out how
much of my free time she eats up (and even more stunned to find out how
much MORE of my free time I WISH she would eat up :) )
 
Jim Cobabe says:
>Your observations about childbirth are not very accurate, according to
>my experience.   Maybe you believe too much of what you see on TV.  :-)
 
What are you saying? That TV would LIE to us? :)
 
By the way, my response about childbirth before was intended to be
tongue-in-cheek :)
 
>If you ever have occasion to share a birth experience with someone you
>love deeply, you may understand my feelings.
 
Maybe. At the moment I'm thrilled that I HAVEN'T shared this experience,
if you catch my drift :)
 
>You might come to a better appreciation of the childbirth experience by
>associating with a family that has a newborn baby.
 
All the people I know at the moment with newborn babies had them by
C-section, and they have yet to comment what a miracle it was. Does the
lack of birthing pains blot out the miracle? Or is it the anesthetic? I
bet that if labor pains make you feel like you're experiencing a
miracle, then going under a scalpel with not drugs would make you feel
like you're actually in heaven :)
 
Once, I observed a friend of mine who experienced so much Joy and Wonder
during childbirth that she had her tubes tied :)
 
>I suppose it is the experiencing of this feeling that leads many to
>believe that childbirth is a miracle.
 
Or maybe it's just the vast quantities of morphine that women all of a
sudden decide to inject themselves with. Take enough pain killer and you
can find your own toes miraculous. :)
 
No, seriously for a sec - how you define a miracle is all hunky-dory by
me. But when James Reed and I started discussing miracles, I think we
were thinking about the high-profile miracles that the Old Testament is
laden with. THESE are the kinds of miracles that would lend credence to
the existence of God. Things that make you go "Neat!" don't help much,
and I do understand that you're not one to try to prove God's existence
by miracles. Welcome to impasse-city :)


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: tim@tim.ingr.com (Tim Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: uunet!ingr!b23a!tim!tim
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:01:48 GMT

Article 267 of hsv.religion:
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:46:24 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

 











LH> Not mine - contempt yes, sympathy no. 

Oh come on, you have to be open minded!

Where have I heard that one before????


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: herd mentality (was Re: feeling threatened?)
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:24:23 GMT

In article <4376.29E1E8CF@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
(stuff deleted)
|> >What I meant to say
|> >is that I typically see radicals as getting their identity from the
|> >groups they associate with rather than simply choosing to associate
|> >with a group because it's how they believe.
|>  
|> What you're describing here is the very spooky and sad phenomenon of the
|> herd mentality. There are people in the world who don't have the time,
|> wit, energy, or whatever to figure out their own personal feelings on
|> the topic at hand, and just join in with whichever gang is most
|> convenient (or, in situations like the Nazis, whichever gang threatened
|> more harm if they DON'T join in).
|>  
|> These poor souls are easy to spot, because they make a LOT of noise
|> about their newfound doctrine, but have almost no answers to pointed
|> questions. 

I have heard this assertion before, and still have trouble with it.  Nobody in
the world is perfectly informed about everything.  This is such a rediculous
notion that no rational person would try to defend it.  Yet you seem to be
critical of those who commit themselves to a cause without first having a
perfect knowledge of the issue from every angle.

It is obviously untrue that these people don't "figure out their own personal
feelings", as you state.  What _is_ true is that they have not approached the
issue with the same perspective and point of view that you see it from.    

I am sure you are adamant about defending the rights of these people to
their own personal opinions.  Why make such a derogatory characterization
of the choices that so many make?

People are motivated to join groups for many reasons.  Most of the time
the reasons are good.  The vast majority of organizations that you characterize
as "gangs" were originally formed with the best of intentions.  And if you
belittle or discredit everyone that tends to associate with a group, you are
pretty much putting down everyone.

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       | Just My Own Bigoted Opinions |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: hsv.religion