HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:52:54 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:43:19 GMT
>FROM:   Steve Boylan <boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com>
>
>In article <2935608738.2.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims"
><p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>
>[ an illuminating discussion of why religious groups are untaxable ]
>
>Thank you for the excellent description of the theory behind defining
>religious groups as "untaxable".  However, in your closing paragraph,
>you wrote:
>
>> My position on the matter is that religious groups should pay ordinary 
>> taxes that prevail in the community, taxes that provide roads, water, sewage, 
>> fire and police protection and the numerous public facilities from which they 
>> benefit.  To argue that the congregations' memberships have already 
>> provided these monies begs the question because they were already allowed to 
>> deduct their contributions to the congregation from their gross incomes. 
>
>Er, not quite - at least not in Massachusetts.  
>
>The taxes that provide roads, water, sewage, fire, and police protection
>come from municipal taxation.  These taxes are typically taxes on real
>property (homes and businesses), sales taxes, water and sewer "fees",
>and so forth.  

[...]
>
>Except for provisions for low-income residents, these taxes are completely
>unrelated to income.  There is no relationship at all between an
>individual's contributions to a religious organization and that
>individual's local property taxes.
>
>				- - Steve

Living in NY, a state with a similar "seek and destroy" tax mentality, and 
being a homeowner, I agree that my pre-emptive statement doesn't quite hold 
water (or sewage as the case may be 8^).  I was thinking more along the 
lines of state income tax (not in all states), sales tax (not in all 
states), lotteries, gasoline taxes, and so forth, not property taxes --
and that's where the analogy falls down.  In NY there are ways of 
reducing one's gross income based on projected sales taxes paid, how 
much Federal you paid (or do I have that backwards -- I have a blind 
spot for taxes -- my eyes glaze over), but you get the idea:  Give some 
money to the church and somewhere along the line you will pay less 
taxes, at least in NY.  Doesn't help the homeowner's assessment, true.  
Lackaday, nothing seems to help. 8^(

-jim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: confused
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:24:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.191030.18215@nuscc.nus.sg> eng10524@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAMASWAMI VISHWANATH) writes:
>If 'God' created Adam and Eve and nobody else (except of course the
>apple and the snake )then did 'our ancestors' practice incest ? How else
>could the entire human race come from just two people ? Oh dear I am a
>sinner ( can hear the Xians say 'Join the ranks') ; CLEANSE ME , cleanse
>me ..... oooh the bloood , the Holy Blood from the wounds .....but wait
>a minute - whaddyathink , it is my Fathers blood . Gee , now it all
>makes sense ....!!!!

It gets worse.  I was doing camera on a religious show, and a minister's
wife was preaching the ways of redemption.  She used the OT animal
sacrifices, coupled with Jesus' sacrifice, to  show that there could be no
salvation without the suffering and death of an innocent victim.  I'm still
not entirely sure what she meant, perhaps that you have to suffer to be
saved (sounds like work to me, I'll just have myself a beer instead).  The
fact that  she looked the part didn't help, I still have images of her sex
life burned into my mind, and it's not a pretty sight. (beat me!  I'm a
dirty sinner OO! OOOO!)

This Christian (at least) desire for self-flagellation entirely escapes me.
When religion is used to teach understanding and tolerance and love, hey,
what the heck, why not?  But this salivating corporal punishment kick has
got to be the sickest display I've ever seen.  No wonder priests end up in
sex scandals all the time, they live with contradiction against nature.

-chris blask

(flame me!  I deserve it, I'm a _nasty_ little sinner! ;-))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:10:13 CST

: 
: So -- to make it very, very clear -- I don't think I have anything
: figured out. 
: 

Finally something that makes sense from you Stephen.

: 
: Science as a method hinges on repetition. Recorded human history is
: only around 6000 years old. Good scientific estimates of the total 
: number of homo sapiens to now is under 100 billion. In a seemingly
: infinite universe of space and time -- a negligible fraction of 
: attempts have been made by us to ascertain anything. Believing 
: in Science is like believing tomorrow will be the same as today. 
: A theory at best. 

And of course your religious fairy tale is a *much* better theory.  8-(

: 
: Thanks sincerely BR. I've never had anyone tell me I was preaching before.
: Do you think I have the calling?? (I think many people would say I'm too 
: much of a smart-ass.)

Your as good as any of those other goons on TV.  Here's an idea for you.
The 701 Club.  You can probably get a early AM time on channel 364 pretty
cheap!

: 
:    |
: -- J --
:    |
:    |  Stephen  <-- living proof that crazies and imbeciles can be saved
: 

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

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

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:10:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.095314.16123@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>Didn't O'Hare seek some sort of legal action against some Apollo astronauts
>for praying on a publically funded spacecraft?  (Like three guys millions of
>miles from earth in a machine built by the lowest bidder should be denied the
>right to call on the deity of their choice!)
>
They weren't calling on the deity of THEIR choice. The reading from the
book of Genesis on Christmas by the Apollo 10 astronauts was written
into their log by NASA. It was the mandating of this reading by the
government that was objected to. (Note that even though it was
supposedly an expression of some sort of Christmas spirit, it came
from the Old Testament.)


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Genital-grabbing
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:07:19 GMT

tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:

>In article <1i2qqqINNhsr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>
>>	I think at several points in the OT (if my memory of bible
>>class in HS serves me right) putting your hand between someones thighs
>>was something they did to "seal" a promise, I think Abraham had ordered
>>a servant to make a promise and told his servant to put his hands between
>>his legs while making the promise...

>Yes. Think of the word "Testimony" -- an oath sworn on the testes.
>This concept was apparently not unknown to the Romans either.

So, does 'testament' (as in 'New Testament') have the same derivation?

mark
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25630 talk.religion.misc:25797
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: JESUS IS GOD (Was: Yeshua the Man...)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:01:17 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


In article <1993Jan6.035437.18062@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes

>I was forced to conclude that there were no clear 
>references to his supposed divinity in the synoptic gospels

This reflects your lack of training, Tim. It has nothing to do with the synoptics.  Let me give you one example you would never spot:

The High Priest questions Jesus: "Are you the Messiah?".
"I am" comes the reply and the High Priest tears his clothes (Mk 14:61f). 

This is a reaction to hearing the Divine Name YHWH which also means "I am" (Source: Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a).  So here Jesus claims to be Messiah and God at the same time.

(Incidentally there is a thought that even by this time the name was considered to be so sacred that it was passed only from High Priest to High Priest. The fact that Jesus pronounced it correctly should have been enough proof to testify to his Messiahship)

>Perhaps I should end by giving Jesus the last word, or at least, I would
>if we could figure out what his last words were. John's gospel tells
>us it was a triumphant 'It is accomplished!'. Luke settles for a resigned
>'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.', but it is Mark's Gospel
>which gives the account which is closest to the event and which has a 
>chilling feel of authenticity:'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?!' My God,
>My God, Why have you forsaken me?! Now that sounds like the cry of >a simple faith-healer and preacher who got caught up in events too big for
>him.

Again, lack of training.  This is the opening line to Psalm 22.  Jesus was identifying himself as the subject of this prophecy which predicts his crucifixion - a quick study:

THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND FEET (22:16)
Guess how this was fulfilled ?

ALL MY BONES ARE OUT OF JOINT (22:14)
This describes a man hanging limp from his cross

I CAN COUNT ALL MY BONES (22:17)
This describes the skeletal figure of Jesus

I'll leave it as an exercise for you to read the whole of this Psalm and see that it clearly depicts a man tortured in both body and soul, mocked by his onlookers, dying and praying for deliverance, which eventually came three days later.

The best Messianic prophecy identifying Jesus is in Daniel 9:24-27 where Daniel predicted the timing of Jesus' execution to be 69 x 7 years after a certain date. (Read my advert in alt.messianic)

Quite simply Jesus knew he was the Messiah and the prophecy in Psalm 2 predicted him to be the BEGOTTEN (not created) Son of God.

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
From: "John A. Johnson" <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:48:21 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Dec22.135737.13846@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Jeffrey D
Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> says:
>
>I don't want to be overly critical about philosophical points made by those
>with a limited background in philosophy, but there is little doubt that
>science
>is a fact stating discourse (i.e., its declarative sentences purport to be
>true).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have always considered facts to be
quite different from truths.  Scientific facts have changed over time
(because, according to people like Hanson and Kuhn, our theoretical
spectacles colour our perceptions of facts), while truths are timeless.
Furthermore, truths (and proofs) exist only within a defined conceptual
domain.  Science is not in the business of providing definitive proofs
or true statements about the empirical world.  Science, rather, proposes
simplified models of the world; these models are admittedly false but may
still be useful.  Also, contrary to the musings of falsificationist
philosophers, scientists do not spend all of their time trying to falsify
others' models.  Rather, they attempt to persuade the scientific community
that they have a better model (where "better" does not necessarily mean
"more truth content").

>Barring some kind of irrealism about theoretical science, which is an
>option but one that non-philosophers seldom stuble upon, the hard sciences are
>usually held up as the exemplar of a fact stating discourse.

Mathematically perfect circles, squares, triangles, etc. do not exist in
our physical, empirical world.  They are fictions, "irrealities," if you
will.  Because theoretical science deals with abstract entities found
nowhere in our sensory experience, perhaps "irrealism" is not a bad label
for it.

>If science could only operate "via negativa" as you propose, you will be hard
>pressed to explain engineering applications of theory.  One cannot build a
>rocket knowing only what we cannot truthfully say about the world.

Indeed.  That is why falsifying is not a primary scientific activity.  Yet
I would challenge the assertion that one must have (timeless) truth in order
to conduct technological activities.  In fact, one can be technologically
succesful while following a poor theory.  One might assume that certain herbs
have curative powers because of their spiritual vibrations and still be able
to help sick people.
----------------------------
John A. Johnson
Soft scientist and certainly no philosopher.
From: Kermit Rose <rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Existence
Date: 27 DEC 92 20:48:12    
Reply-To: rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Florida State University


What do we mean by existence?
The meaning of existence is different for each class that we apply it to.
I say that "I exist".  This has one meaning.
I say that "You exist".  This has a different meaning for "existence".
I say that this computer exist. I say that computer programs exist.  These 
are different meaning of existence. 
To say that the moon exists, and to say that electrons exist use different 
meanings for the word "exist".
To say that Energy exists, that numbers exist, and that generosity and love 
exist use different meanings of "exist".
We may arrange these different meanings of exist in a partial order.  
Perhaps if we agree on the partial ordering of these many different uses of 
the concept existence, we will not have to argue about whether or not some 
one idea describes "an existing thing". We will see that one person has 
used the word existence for one range of applications, whereas another 
person has applied the word existence to a different range of applications.
These arguments over whether or not God exist is much like two color blind 
people arguring over what colors  really exist on the color chart placed 
before them. All of us have some degree of color blindness. And colors do 
not exist on the chart, but only in our mind.

rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu          To be sure I see your response, use e-mail.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may post, repost, or publish ANY communication received from me.
                 male      female     common    neuter
nomitive         he        she        xe        it
genitive         his       her        hyx       its
objective        him       her        hyx       it      
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Satan Worship
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:15:40 GMT

I expect most of you have heard the one about the dyslexic
agnostic insomniac who lay awake every night wondering if 
there was a dog. Well, did you hear about the dyslexic 
satanist who accidently sold his soul to Santa?

I hope everyone had a nice feast of Sol Invictus 

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25289 talk.religion.misc:25466
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:31:59 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <parsons.726390603@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>>I notice you conveniently side-stepped my earlier examples of all
>>the stuff that's NOT in the bible... in fact, the bible only contains
>>information that ordinary scholars of the period might be expected to
>>know (or guess).  Since today we know a lot more of their history
>>than they did, and we can see how much is NOT mentioned in the bible's
>>comprehensive history of the Earth: is not the conclusion that the
>>"all-seeing God" in the Bible is extremely limited by today's standards?
>
>Well, I thought I'd butt in here because I haven't seen a response to this
>particular charge yet.
>
>The Bible is NOT meant to be a "comprehensive history of the Earth."

This will come as quite a shock to many bible literalists.
Or, maybe you don't think these people are "real" christians,
while they may think that you are some sort of heretic.

>The Bible was written for the express purpose of recording God's interaction
>with man to bring about salvation through a chosen bloodline (Adam, Noah, 
>Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.), a chosen nation (Israel), and the Messiah
>(Jesus).

This is the standard xtian spin.  However, it doesn't jive with
the fact that the OT says virtually nothing about an afterlife
or "salvation".

BTW, the bible says nothing about its "purpose".  This is
not surprising, since the bible was assembled long after
its components were written?  How do you know what the
bible's purpose is?  Next question:  what is the 
purpose of the qu'ran?

>The Bible is a record of God's plan of salvation for mankind, 
>not a comprehensive history.  So your understanding of the purpose of the
>Bible is flawed.  Besides, if the Christian faith is true, then which is
>more important:  how the pyramids were built? or how you can be reconciled
>to God?

If the bible contains factual errors and textual contradictions,
how are we to know which parts to take literally?  This is not
an idle question:  a "new age" church to which I once belonged
had an entirely different interpretaion of such terms as
"eternal life" and "the kingdom of God".  Their reading of the
gospels was more internally consistent than the normal
xtian interpretaion, and much more humane.

-- 

---  Overheard on talk.religion.misc:
"God would do nothing that wasn't for your own good even if
it involves pain.  There are times when we ask God to hit us
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:30:10 GMT


lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde) writes:

>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>|Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
>|American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
>|same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
>|must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
>|a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
>|would like to hear your arguments.

>|If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
>|time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
>|against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
>|evolution as it stands today?

>Um .. the only way of comparing genetics is to note differences and
>similarities.

That is the definition of "comparison", yes.  :)

>Now, I get the impression that the genetics of a 'native' south
>american is simply indistinguishable from that of a 'native' New
>Zealander. IE: the genetics are the 'same' but when decoded, there are
>obvious differences ( eg hair, skin colour, eye colour, other physcial
>characteristics) that distinguish races. Since nobody can actually
>decode the genes, 

The above paragraph makes very little sense.  You say there are 
obvious genetic differences that distinguish races, and in the same
breath say this same thing is not possible.  Yes, it is possible.
As we speak, $3 billion is being spent in the U.S. on a project 
to completely map human genes.  It will be finished within several years.

If that doesn't move you, a simple way to "decode" the genes is simply
to let the organism grow, and visible characteristics will become
visible.  Amazing, isn't it.  :)

>                  then all humans have genes which are basically
>indistinguishable. There goes you 'evolution' argument.

But humans ARE genetically distinguishable.  Surely you can distinguish
an aboriginal family from your own (I assume you aren't aboriginal).

>See I'm not saying that there aren't races which show different genes,
>I just dont accept the ones you cite do. They are all 'human', homo
>sapian, and thus evolution isnt seen. People simply adapt to
>the climate, albiet slowly over generations, but thats something
>all humans display

This last sentence is the crux of the matter...  Just what do you
think this "simple adaption" is, exactly, that you dismiss it so casually?

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:06:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <parsons.726828820@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
> ....
>Now, as for the "Christian God condones murder and theft, at least when 
>it serves his purposes", bit...  You do truely show ignorance of the 
>nature of God.  This can be disproved in the story of David and Bathsheba, 
>where murder (David plans the death of Bathsheba's husband) and theft (in 
>a sense, David steals Bathsheba) are both involved, and both are condemned 
>and punished.  (If you want to read it for yourself it's 1 Samuel 11-12.)  
>Now, I guess you could argue that "it [didn't] serve his purposes."  But 
>as far as the story in 1 Samuel 25 or in any other instance, YOU would 
>have to prove that God condoned it and it suited his purposes since you
>are making the positive assertion in this case.  Based on other "rulings" 
>and on Commandments 6 & 8, God does not condone murder or theft.

But according to these accounts God applies justice and punishment
arbitrarily.  The commandments against murder and adultery given to
Moses allowed of no exceptions.  Yet, when God's `favorite', David,
was involved, the account says that God was quite willing to apply
a much lesser punishment to David and Bathsheba.  In fact, much of
the punishment fell upon others who were not even involved.  God killed
the illegitimate child and brought about unrest on David's descendants.
Anyone other than David would have been stoned to death.

The accounts say that God even had a more personal interest in keeping
David alive.  He had said that the Messiah would come through David's
line, and if David was killed according to the Law, this could not
happen.  So the Bible itself gives proof that God arbitrarily applies
laws and standards of justice, especially when they conflict with
other purposes.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc