from sklearn.datasets import fetch_20newsgroups

categories = ["alt.atheism", "talk.religion.misc"]
data = fetch_20newsgroups(categories=categories)
data

Downloading 20news dataset. This may take a few minutes.

{'data': ['From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)\nSubject: Benediktine Metaphysics\nLines: 24\n\nBenedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:\n\n>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.\n\n"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to\n\n\n      THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST\n\nI will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to\n\n      THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST\n\nthen we\'ve come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in\ndescription are merely failures in description.\n\n(I\'m not an objectivist, remember.)\n\n\n-- \nC. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,\n                  +    but strife closed in the sod.\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:\ntove!mangoe       +    the marv\'lous peace of God."\n',
'Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)\nFrom: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>, DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:\n>\n>   Science is wonderful at answering most of our questions.  I\'m not the type\n>to question scientific findings very often, but...  Personally, I find the\n>theory of evolution to be unfathomable.  Could humans, a highly evolved,\n>complex organism that thinks, learns, and develops truly be an organism\n>that resulted from random genetic mutations and natural selection?\n\n[...stuff deleted...]\n\nComputers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator.\nWe did not "create" computers.  We did not create the sand that goes\ninto the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into\nprocessor board.  We took these things and put them together in an\ninteresting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through \nphotosynthesis.  It\'s a much bigger leap to talk about something that\ncreated "everything" from nothing.  I find it unfathomable to resort\nto believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we\nsimply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even\nwere beginnings at all.  And that\'s ok with me.  The present keeps me\nperfectly busy.\n\n-jim halat\n\n',
'From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\nSubject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nIn-Reply-To: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu\'s message of 5 Apr 93 16:49:14 GMT\nOrganization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24\nLines: 24\n\nIn <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu writes:\n\n[deletia]\n\n> I don\'t understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic \n> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify\n> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,\n> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_\n> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you\'re attempting\n> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic\n> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than\n> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.\n\n      In the deletions somewhere, it mentioned something about chopping\noff of hands being a punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this\nis so (I wouldn\'t know), and assuming it is done by people fitting your\nrequirement for "muslim" (which I find highly likely), then would you\nplease try to convince Bobby Mozumder that muslims chop people\'s hands\noff?\n\n      Come back when you\'ve succeeded.\n\n-- \n  Disclaimer?   "It\'s great to be young and insane!"\n',
'From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: Red Barn Data Center\nLines: 50\n\nIn article <1qvv7u$kc1@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:\n...\n>\tI think that the consensus will become that FBI/ATF muffed it,\n>not merely because they walked into an ambush on Feb 28, and Koresh\n>got his prophesy today, against their stated intentions, but because\n>they played right into polarizing the situation and not diffusing\n>it.\n>\n>\tKoresh had set up all the conditions of a classic cult\n>confrontation and had stated publically what the outcome would become.\n\n\tBefore or after his kids were shot?\n\n>The government upped the ante and parcipitated the conclusion today.\n>It does seem that the fires were set from within the compound by the\n>members of the group and not caused by the CS gas or the way it was\n>delivered. Let the subsequent investigation shed light on that. Suppose\n\n\tThen why make the comment?\n\n>that the government had used pyrotechnics and started the fire. The\n>Dividians still had the decision to stay or leave. They never intended\n\n\tAs did the Jews against the Nazis in WW II: do what I say or die.\n\n>to leave.\n>\n>>The building burns, almost everyone dies. It probably doesn\'t bother\n>>you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe\n>>particularly in Koresh or his message.\n\n\n\tALl humans, I hope.\n\n>\n>\tYes, the finger pointing has begun.\n>\n>>\tFour ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of\n>>crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.\n>\n>\tYeah, they blew it. They were being too "rational" in a\n>situation that was not your ordianry criminal game. They haven\'t learned\n>that much from Jonestown, or The Move House, or the SLA shootout.\n\n\tOr perhaps they have: kill first, blame the dead ones,\n\tdestroy all the evidence.\n\n>\n\nroyc\n', 'Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Info and Experiences\nFrom: patb@bnr.co.uk (Patrick Brosnan)\nOrganization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.\nNNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs195.bnr.co.uk\nLines: 21\n\nIn article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes:\n>\n>Concerniong this thread...\n>\n>Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ?? THis movie seems to tipify the\n>"imaginary friend" theme rather well. I LOVED the movie, as i had an\n>imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories. \n>\n>Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred". It\'ll make ya\n>think. especially the end.\n>\n>Blessings!\n>--Kim\n>\n\n\n-- \nPatrick Brosnan. <patb@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!patb\nNorthern Telecomm, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. \nPhone : +44 81 945 2135 or +44 81 945 4000 x2135\n"Oh, Flash, I love you - but we\'ve only got 14 hours to save the universe."\n', ' howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nFrom: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 35\n\nIn article <66015@mimsy.umd.edu>\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would\n>ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.\n>Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)\n>is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since\n>these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole\n>thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--\n>even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so\n>again I don\'t see how evidence is possible.\n>\n \nNo cookies, Charlie. The claims that Jesus have been seen are discredited\nas extraordinary claims that don\'t match their evidence. In this case, it\nis for one that the gospels cannot even agree if it was Jesus who has been\nseen. Further, there are zillions of other spook stories, and one would\nhardly consider others even in a religious context to be some evidence of\na resurrection.\n \nThere have been more elaborate arguments made, but it looks as if they have\nnot passed your post filtering.\n \n \n>I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the\n>speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.\n \nIt is no evidence in the strict meaning. If there was actual evidence it would\nprobably be part of it, but the says nothing about the claims.\n \n \nCharlie, I have seen Invisible Pink Unicorns!\nBy your standards we have evidence for IPUs now.\n Benedikt\n', 'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: Americans and Evolution\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 67\n\nIn article <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>\nbobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>\n>I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"\n>does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement\n>that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don\'t\n>know and therefore don\'t believe in them and don\'t NOT believe in then\n>(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying\n>I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even\n>after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.\n>\n \nNo it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here that\ndriving a car requires faith that the car drives.\n \nFor me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I have in the\npremises and the argument used.\n \n \n>But first let me say the following.\n>We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and\n>"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.\n>To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE\n>being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not\n>exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it\'s rather pointless\n>to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what\n>I\'m doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of\n>being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this\n>statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,\n>in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it\'s\n>\'usual sense\' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.\n>I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of\n>God".\n>\n \nNo, that\'s a word game. The term god is used in a different way usually.\nWhen you use a different definition it is your thing, but until it is\ncommonly accepted you would have to say the way I define god is ... and\nthat does not exist, it is existence itself, so I say it does not exist.\n \nInterestingly, there are those who say that "existence exists" is one of\nthe indubitable statements possible.\n \nFurther, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is\nalready used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are implying\nmore with it, in which case your definition and your argument so far\nare incomplete, making it a fallacy.\n \n \n(Deletion)\n>One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say\n>that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion\n>"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are\n>you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that\n>are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief.\n(Deletion)\n \nWhere does that follow? Aren\'t observations based on the assumption\nthat something exists?\n \nAnd wouldn\'t you say there is a level of definition that the assumption\n"god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.\n \nSo, where is your evidence for that "god is" is meaningful at some level?\n Benedikt\n', "From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 45\n\nIn article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:\n>In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:\n>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew\n>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n>#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut\n>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality\n>#> #are equally good.\n>#> \n>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?\n>#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?\n>#\n\nEither Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:\n\n[...stiff deleted...]\n\n>#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when\n>#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?\n\n[...stiff deleted...]\n\nSpeed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that\nwill result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A \nbullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph\nwill be moving at a speed of\n\n        (a) 0mph to someone on the train.\n        (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.\n\nThe reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting\nhere is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.\nEvery person off, a bullet moving 60mph.  \n\nI know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is\nfilled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.\n\n-- \n jim halat         halat@bear.com     \nbear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--\n   nyc             i speak only for myself\n\n\n\n\n",
'From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)\nSubject: Re: Requests\nLines: 53\nOrganization: Walla Walla College\nLines: 53\n\nIn article <11857@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:\n>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\n>Subject: Re: Requests\n>Date: 19 Apr 93 18:25:08 GMT\n>In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> mayne@cs.fsu.edu writes:\n>>\n(excess stuff deleted...)\n\n    \n>  However, it seems that a local church elder has been getting\n>  revelations from god about a devastating quake scheduled to level\n>  the area on May 3rd.  He has independent corroboration from\n>  several friends, who apparently have had similar revelations.  The\n>  5.7 quake was, in fact, in response to a request from the lot of\n>  them seeking a sign from god on the veracity of their visions.\n>\n>  None of this would be terribly interesting, except for the amount\n>  of stir it has created in the area.  Many, many people are taking\n>  these claims very seriously.  There are some making plans to be\n>  out of the are on the target date.  My local religious radio\n>  station devoted 4 hours of discussion on the topic.  \n>\n>  I even called up during one of the live broadcasts to tell the\n>  host that he would have a full account of my conversion on May\n>  4th, provided my family and I survived the devastation and ruin\n>  that will invariably follow the quake.\n>\n>/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n>\n>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n>\n>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\n>and sank Manhattan out at sea.\n>\n>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\nI know of a similar incident about 3 years ago.  A climatologist( Ithink \nthat was his profession) named Iben Browning predicted that an earthquake \nwould hit the New Madrid fault on Dec.3.  Some schools in Missouri that were \non the fault line actually cancelled school for the day.  Many people \nevacuated New Madrid and other towns in teh are.  I wouldn\'t be suprised if \nthere were more journalists in the area than residents.  Of course, teh \nearthquake never occured.  HOw do I know about his?  I used to live in \nSouthern Illinois and the lican middle school was built directly on the \nfault line.  No we still had school... We laughed at the poor idiots who \nbelieved the prediction. :):):):)\n\nBob, if you\'re wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have \nto look elsewhere.\n\nTammy "No Trim" Healy\n\n\n',
'From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)\nSubject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)\nOrganization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor\nLines: 51\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr2.144909.806@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:\n>In article <1993Apr2.165032.3356@bradford.ac.uk>, L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:\n[deletions]\n>>...Argument from incredulity has not been considered a valid form of\n>> reasoning since medieval times.\n[deletions]\n>Interesting that you should mention that "Argument from incredulity has\n>not been considered a valid form of reasoning since medieval times."  I\n>quite agree.  Why then, do some atheists here engage in it?  More than\n>a few times I have read posts where the atheists posting state that\n>they \'cannot see how a gracious and loving God can allow such evil and\n>suffering to occur as we see on the earth.\'  Simply because they cannot\n>envision it, it must not be true.  If this is not an argument from\n>incredulity, I don\'t know what is!\n\n As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity.\nHowever, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner.\nIt is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see...\n...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."\n Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such\nphenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not\nan argument in theism\'s favor. Especially when different theisms offer \ndifferent explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly\nthe same theism give different explanations...\n\n>                                    God has far more complex motivations\n>and reasons for action or non-action than to simply "fix" evil whenever\n>and however it occurs, or even *before* it occurs.  And yet, it is this\n>very same argument from incredulity which ranks high among reasons\n>why atheists (in general) reject God and in particular the Christian God.\n\n Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the\nlack of evidence in theism\'s favor. You mileage may vary. :->\n\n>This seems to be the universal bane of human reasoning and rationality, \n>to wit, that it is far easier to see the logical fallacy or inept reasoning \n>on the part of one\'s opponents than it is to see it in oneself.\n\n Oh, heck, I\'ll be snide this once. :-> It\'s also fairly easy to attack\narguments that are not made. (I.e. \'strawmen\'.)\n\n>As one Man of Wisdom put it, take the log out of your own eye before you \n>try to remove the splinter from your neighbor\'s eye.\n\n Sage advice indeed.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n Raymond Ingles                       ingles@engin.umich.edu\n\n "An apple every eight hours keeps three doctors away." - B. Kliban\n',
'Subject: Re: [lds] Rick\'s reply\nFrom: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>\nOrganization: Brigham Young University\nLines: 95\n\nIn article <C5KDzK.497@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert\nWeiss) says:\n>     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to\n>     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may\n>     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith\n>     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is\n>     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.\n\n   I\'m sorry, I thought we were discussing heresy.  I assumed that heresy\nmeant a departure from orthodoxy, in which case generally accepted belief is\nindeed an important issue.  In this case, the definition of the word "create"\nis of great importance, since creation is the issue being discussed.\n\n>\n>     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created\n>     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon\n>     belief..." You can\'t grant your conclusion and then expect the point to\n>     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address\n>     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the\n>     conclusion that you grant.\n\n  I should have said "given the Mormon belief."  If you disagree with the\nMormon belief that creation is more a function of organization of eternally\nexistent substance than one of ex nihilo creation, then that is the important\npoint.\n\n>     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus\n>     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS\n>     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.\n\n  Correction: you interpret the Bible to mean something very specific by\nsuch terms.\n\n>     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is\n>     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible\n>     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:\n>\n   It always cracks me up when anti-Mormons presume to tell Mormons what they\nbelieve.  Mormons do, in fact, believe that all people, including Christ and\nLucifer, are children of God in the sense that we were all created (or\norganized or whatever) by Him.  We also believe that being "offspring" of\nGod has a symbolic sense when applied to being spiritually "born again" of\nHim.  Thus the same word can be used to convey different meanings.  This is\nhow language works, Robert, and it\'s why making someone an offender for a\nword is dangerous.\n\n\n>     This is really a red herring. It doesn\'t address any issue raised, but\n>     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read\n>     something into the Bible, doesn\'t change what the Bible teaches. For\n<...>\n>     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not\n>     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that\n>     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches,\n>     you have to look at the Bible.\n\n   On the contrary, Robert, it is not a red herring at all to show that those\nwho rely wholly on the Bible cannot seem to agree on what it says.  You say\nthat one must simply "look at the Bible" to see what it teaches, but centuries\nof people doing just that have sho0wn that no one is really sure what it says.\nAre we to believe that you are the only one who really understands the\nscriptures?\n\n>     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is\n>     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late\n>     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the\n>     issue of Jesus needing to be saved.\' Rick comes the closest with his "I\n>     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.\n\n  Let me clarify this one more time.  You did not refer to the Mormon belief\nthat Jesus needed to be saved, but rather to McConkie\'s belief in same.  We\nkeep trying to point out to you that Bruce McConkie is not the source of\nMormon doctrine, and you keep ignoring it. (see below)\n\n>\n>     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of\n>     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were \'official doctrine.\' I don\'t\n>     think that it matters if McConkie\'s views were canon. That is not the\n>     issue.  Were McConkie\'s writings indicative of Mormon belief on this\n>     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may\n>     certainly be.\n\n  On the contrary, Robert, if you are quoting McConkie\'s words as Mormon\ncanon then the question of whether they are canon or not is of *great*\nimportance.  The fact is that they are not.  Whether or not they indicate\ngeneral Mormon belief would only be ascertainable by interviewing a large\nnumber of Mormons.\n>\n>\n>=============================\n>Robert Weiss\n>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu\n--\nRick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET\n\n',
'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: islamic authority over women\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 21\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.120352.1574@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,\ndarice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:\n>> The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_\n> believer and who may be "faking it".  This is something known only by\n> the person him/herself (and God).  Your assumption that anyone who\n> _claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true.\n\nSo that still leaves the door totally open for Khomeini, Hussein\net rest. They could still be considered true Muslims, and you can\'t\njudge them, because this is something between God and the person.\n\nYou have to apply your rule as well with atheists/agnostics, you\ndon\'t know their belief, this is something between them and God.\n\nSo why the hoopla about Khomeini not being a real Muslim, and the\nhoopla about atheists being not real human beings?\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n',
'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 60\n\nIn <CINDY.93Apr18124333@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:\n\n>Various quotes deleted in the interest of saving a little bit of\n>bandwidth, but i will copy the Koran quote:\n>>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE\n>>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES)\n>>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33)\n\n>As it has been pointed out, this quote makes no claim about what\n>orbits what.  The idea that something orbited something had been held\n>as true for many years before the Koran was written, so the fact that\n>it says something orbits something is hardly surprising insight.  My\n>concern is with the word "rounded". \n\n>There are two interpretations of this word:\n>1. It means in a circle.  This is wrong, although many believed it to\n>be true at the time the Koran was written.  In other words, it is not\n>describing our neighborhood of the universe as it really exists, but\n>as it was thought to be at the time.  This has implications which i\n>hope are obvious to everyone.\n>2. It means "in a rounded shape", which could include elipses (the\n>geometrical form which most nearly describes the orbits of the\n>planets).  This is also not a great insight.  Look at the shapes you\n>see in nature.  Very few of them even approach a square or rectangle;\n>those are human-created shapes.  Everything in nature is rounded to\n>some degree.  Even the flat-earthers don\'t try to claim Earth is a\n>rectangle.  Children who draw imaginary animals seldom give them\n>rectangular bodies.  We seem to instinctively recognize that nature\n>produces rounded shapes; hence, the assumption that the orbits of the\n>planets would be round hardly takes divine inspiration.\n\nIt is good to remember that every translation is to some extent an\ninterpretation, so (as you point out below) one must really go back to\nthe original Arabic.  Regarding the verses relevant to nature, I prefer\nto use Dr. Maurice Bucaille\'s translations (in his book, "The Bible, the\nQur\'an and Science") for in general his translations are more literal.\n \nMaurice Bucaille translates the portion of the verse you are addressing\nas \n\n"...Each one is travelling with an orbit in its own motion."\n\n(Also note that "the celestial bodies" in the first translation quoted\nby you above is the translator\'s interpolation -- it is not existent in\nthe original Arabic, which is why it is included in brackets.) \n\n>Perhaps someone who can read the original Arabic can eliminate one of\n>these interpretations; at any rate, neither one of them is exactly\n>impressive.\n\nYou\'re right, what the verses _do_ contain isn\'t all that remarkable.\n\nHowever, Dr. Bucaille (a surgeon, that\'s how he\'s a "Dr.") thinks it is\nsignificant that the above verse contains no geocentric ideas, even\nthough geocentrism was all the rage up until the 17th century (?) or so.\n(And this goes for the rest of the Qur\'an as well, which has about 750\nverses or so regarding nature, I think I remember reading once.)\n\n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   \n',
'From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: IF ONLY HE KNEW\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 20\n\nprudenti@juncol.juniata.edu wrote:\n\n: Upon arriving at home, Joseph probably took advantage of Mary...had his way\n: with her so to speak.  Of course, word of this couldn\'t get around so Mary,\n: being the highly-religious follower that she was decided "Hey, I\'ll just say\n: that GOD impregnated me...no one will ever know!"\n: \n: Thus, seen as a trustworthy and honorable soul, she was believed...\n:     \n: And then came Jesus, the child born from violence.\n: \n: \n: \n\nDave,\n\nCan you explain the purpose of your post, I can\'t imagine what you\nmust have thougt it meant. \n\nBill\n',
'From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)\nSubject: Re: Comments on the Koresh 3-02 Transcript\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    \nNntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu\nOrganization: The University of Texas at Arlington\nLines: 102\n\nIn article <1993Apr14.200259.20419@microsoft.com>, \niank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes...\n\n(stephen) wrote:\n>>Correction to my prior post, proper citation is:\n>>\n>>\tIsaiah 30:26 -- Moreover the light of the moon shall\n>>\t   be as the light of the sun, and the light of the \n>>\t   sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,\n>>\t   in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of\n>>\t   his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.\n> \n>So we have to wait for the sun to nova?\n\nMore along the lines of Hebrews 12:25-29, I reckon...\n\n\tSee that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they\n\tescaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much \n\tmore shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that \n\tspeaks from heaven:\n\n\tWhose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised,\n\tsaying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also\n\theaven.\n\n\tAnd this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of\n\tthose things that are shaken, as of things that are made,\n\tthat those things which cannot be shaken may remain.\n\n\tWherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, \n\tlet us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably \n\twith reverence and godly fear:\n\n\tFor our God is a consuming fire.\n\n\nOr 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10...\n\n\tAnd to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord\n\tJesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,\n \tIn flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,\n\tand that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:\n\n\tWho shall be punished with everlasting destruction from \n\tthe presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;\n \tWhen he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be\n\tadmired in all them that believe (because our testimony \n\tamong you was believed) in that day. \n\n\nKinda gives Flaming a whole new meaning, I reckon. \n\n\t\t\t      - < > -\n\nThe impression I got from talking with Livingston was that the coming\nof the Lord, power-wise, is going to be something that those who are\nunprepared can\'t handle -- kinda like overloading a fuse -- due to \nguilt. Somehow it seems to also apply to the entire physical world as \nwe know it. LF suggests that God doesn\'t want that and has sent Koresh \nas a reminder. \n\nSeems that those who have been purified through salvation, or that those\nprotected by the Seals, will be the ones who survive. And no -- I don\'t \nhave a good idea yet what "being shielded by the seals" actually involves \nor how exactly it relates to salvation. (Other than it involves the\nmarriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride... for those of you Biblical\nwell versed.)\n\t\t\t     - < > -\n\nMe personally, I\'m totally 100% dependent on God through Christ, so \nif God wants me to understand, good. If not, also good. If God wants\nto save me, or dispose of me, that\'s great either way. Being born in\nthe Spirit, means being part of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2), so\nwho and what I was, matters little. * What\'s important is loving GOD *\n\nCome Nova, Nuke, or Apocalypse -- who cares? Satan might even be able \nto pull off a pretty convincing fake. Big deal. Not worth fearing or \nworrying about though, not before:\n\n\n\t\t   -* The Greater Glory of GOD *-\n \t\n\nMaybe Koresh is right, maybe he isn\'t, and it should be interesting to \nsee the new message (or prophecy). The tour of the Bible I\'ve taken in \nstudying the passages he points to in the 3-02 text, has been most re-\nwarding. But the test of prophecy is still the fruit it bears -- which \nis not yet clear. \n\nMuch much more important is "Charity" -- which by definition *is* --\n\n\t                   Love for GOD\n\n(I hope Dear Reader, you\'ve taken all this as an expression of faith, \n and not a statement of mere fact. Seems many folks get real upset at \n reminders. ;-)\n\n   |\n-- J -- \n   |\n   | stephen\n\n',
'From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615\nLines: 32\n\nalamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) writes:\n\n> In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony\n> >\n> > Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have\n> >probably spent more time than you doing the same. \n> >\n> > None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the\n> >case. \n> \n> Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that\n> AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin\n> off of AMORC??\n> i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this\n> claim. \n> \n> \n\nWell, there is a fair amount of evidence floating around that indicates\nthat OTO has been around since at least the late 1800s, long before\nCrowley ever heard of it, how long has AMORC been around? (yes, I know\nthat they claim to have existed as an organization clear into prehistory,\nbut I doubt that they have any organizational paperwork\nas a non-profit that can be carbon-dated to 20,000 BC)\n A.Lizard\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nA.Lizard Internet Addresses:\nalizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM (preferred)\nPacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)\nalizard@gentoo.com (backup)\nPGP2.2 public key available on request\n', 'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: The Magi of Matthew was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\nLines: 238\n\nIn article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> \nBill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:\n> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable\n> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn\'t.\n\nRef: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade\n\nMAGI: \n\n[Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting\n ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous\n _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which\n most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the\n second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of\n the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi\n to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]\n\n The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain \netymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the\nAvestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning\nwould have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly\ntribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is\nprobably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of\nthe six tribes of the Medes.\n For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a\npriestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were\nresponsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their\nknowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median\npriesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median\nmonarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century\nthrough the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the\nGreat (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political\nand civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced\nconcerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period\n(Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is\ndemonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by\nDarius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by\nGreek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of\nthe Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.\n The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the\nsacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the\npossibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be\nattested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.\n There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi\nare members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of\nthe priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is\nuntenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the\nAvestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is\nnot without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found,\nin conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of\npurity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit\nand matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from\nthe root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and\nhas been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an\necstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though\nthere may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms\nmagavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the\nAvestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite\na recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore\nthe Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is \nperhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis \n(Gershevitch, 1964).\n The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the\nPahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in\nparticular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During\nthe Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of\na hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of\nhigh priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical\nhierarchy.\n The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl.,\nkhwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of\nthe corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it.\nThe corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons\nof putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian\ncommunity and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the\nParsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this\nrite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was\nin vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with\nwax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples\nof Central Asia.\n The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to\noffer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a\nritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the\ncustodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the\nrelationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was\ncalled upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also\nknown for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra)\nsuch as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants,\ntunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of\nfelt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose\nand mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their\nbreath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition\nthat is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was\nthat of the priesthood: white.\n In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in\npossession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they\ngradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of\nprofessional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally\ninclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been\njealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this\nthey were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible\nfor teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus\nthe "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with\nthe education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and\nmaster of himself.\n During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great\ninfluence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite\nseveral dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of\nGaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself\nSmerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation -\nthe Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media,\nin Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed\nas a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.\n No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were\nrenowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of\nthe greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men\nwho arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in\nBethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were\nalso known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism;\nthis was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek,\nlike "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the\nChaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and\nhad a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.\n To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it\nis necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called\nwestern Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must\nhave been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the\nIranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in\ncontact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in\nvarying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.\n The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their\nvarying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical\nhistorians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their\ncustoms, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism,\nbelief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology\nand eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi\neven speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the\nMagi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted\nZoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and\nplaced themselves under his venerable name.\n Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the\neastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those\nelements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite\noften, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the\nZoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring\ndaivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of\ntexts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and\npractices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first\nchapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the\nsupreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.;\nGathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of\nall evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the\nland of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it\nhas been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the\nabsence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own\npriesthood, would be very strange.\n The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the\ncorpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the\nfirst millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute\ndirectly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to\nus especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of\nthe ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles\nof the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent\nspirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra\nMainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans-\nformation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro-\nastrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the\nMesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known\nto the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can\nsee the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which\nwe give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]\n Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously\nimportant role in the transmission of Zarathushtra\'s treachings, as well as in\nthe definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their\nnatural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of\nZoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began\nto study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia,\nHermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises\non the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have\nsurvived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of\nwisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority\nof such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an\nabundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).\n Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting\nground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous\n_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which\nmost likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the\nsecond century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of\nthe Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi\nto Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]\n The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the\nreligious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce,\n1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of\nIran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to\nestablish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an\northodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures\nin the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar\nand Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.\n\nSAOSHYANT:\n The Avestan term saoshyant ("future benefactor"; MPers., soshans) designates\nthe savior of the world, who will arrive at a future time to redeem humankind.\nThe concept of the future savior is one of the fundamental notions of Zoro-\nastrianism, together with that of dualism; it appears as early as in the Gathas.\nZarathushtra (Zoroaster), as the prophet of the religion, is himself a Sao-\nshyant, one who performs his works for the Frashokereti, the end of the present\nstate of the world, when existence will be "rehabilitated" and "made splendid."\n[See Frashokereti]\n Later Zoroastrian doctrine developed this notion into a true eschatological\nmyth and expanded the number of Saoshyants from one to three. All the saviors\nare born from the seed of Zarathushtra, which is preserved through the ages in\nLake Kansaoya (identified with present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran),\nprotected by 99,999 fravashis, or guardian spirits. The greatest of the awaited\nSaoshyants, the victorious Astvatereta ("he who embodies truth"), the son of\nthe Vispataurvairi ("she who conquers all"), is the third, who will make\nexistence splendid; he appears in Yashts 19. Upon his arrival humankind will\nno longer be subject to old age, death, or corruption, and will be granted\nunlimited power. At that time the dead will be resurrected, and the living will\nbe immortal and indestructable. Brandishing the weapon with which he kills the\npowerful enemies of the world of truth (that is, the world of the spirit, and\nof asha), Astvatereta will look upon the whole of corporeal existence and\nrender it imperishable. He and his comrades will engage in a great battle with\nthe forces of evil, which will be destroyed.\n The name Astvatereta is clearly the result of theological speculation\n(Kellens, 1974), as are those of his two brothers, Ukhshyatereta, "he who makes\ntruth grow," and Ukhshyatnemah, "he who makes reverence grow"; the names of the\nthree virgins (Yashts 13) who are impregnated with the seed of Zarathushtra\nwhen they bathe in Lake Kansaoya and give birth to the Saoshyants, are equally\nspeculative. Each of these Saoshyants will arrive at the beginning of a\nmillennium, initiating a new age and a new cycle of existence; Astvatereta will\nappear in the third and final millennium to save mankind.\n The doctrine of the future savior had already taken shape in the Archaemenid\nperiod (sixth to fourth century BCE). It was not, perhaps the principal element\nin the formation of the messianic idea, but it was certainly a determining\nfactor, one that enjoyed great success in the Hellenistic period beyond the\nconfines of the Iranian world. A similar concept, that of the future Buddha,\nMaitreya, was most likely indebted to it, and Christian messianism can trace\nits roots to the same source.\n', 'From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: University of Illinois at Urbana\nLines: 47\n\nIn <lsran6INN14a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric \nMarsh) writes:\n\n>In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 \nStudent) writes:\n>>Hmmmm. Define objective morality. Well, depends upon who you talk to.\n>>Some say it means you can\'t have your hair over your ears, and others say\n>>it means Stryper is acceptable. _I_ would say that general principles\n>>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.\n\n>>Ten Commandments\n\n>>Sayings of Jesus\n\n>>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible, \n\n>>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether\n>> you think we have accurate copies of the NT.\n\n>Gong!\n\n>Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined\n>an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality\n>with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?\n\n>Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.\n\n>>MAC\n>>\n\n>eric\n\nHuh? Please explain. Is there a problem because I based my morality on \nsomething that COULD be wrong? Gosh, there\'s a heck of a lot of stuff that I \nbelieve that COULD be wrong, and that comes from sources that COULD be wrong. \nWhat do you base your belief on atheism on? Your knowledge and reasoning? \nCOuldn\'t that be wrong?\n\nMAC\n--\n****************************************************************\n Michael A. Cobb\n "...and I won\'t raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois\n class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana\n -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu\n \nWith new taxes and spending cuts we\'ll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.\n', 'Subject: Re: Albert Sabin\nFrom: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)\nReply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu\nOrganization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.\nNntp-Posting-Host: charlie\nLines: 112\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:\n>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:\n>|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:\n>|> \n>|> [earlier dialogue deleted]\n>|> \n>|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating \n>|> >|> to questions of science. \n>|> \n>|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]\n>|> \n>|> > There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is\n>|> > based on more than science alone. \n>|> \n>|> Nope, no fallacy. Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle\n>|> why and who.\n>\n> The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the\n> supernatural in the question of origins. Is this is a fair premise?\n\nNot entirely. Its not a premise, its a conclusion. Second, that scientists\n(for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity. \nScientists are empircists, not theologians.\n\n> I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of\n> truth.\n\nSo do scientists, and long before you did. Clearly you have a deep and \nfundamental misunderstanding of science.\n\n>|> \n>|> > If you met a man who could walk on\n>|> > water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and\n>|> > then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect\n>|> > your belief in the origin of man. (I can expand on this.) \n>|> \n>|> Nope, wouldn\'t affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically\n>|> modern humans. If that man could show me something better, I\'d change, even if \n>|> it was the biblical story in exact detail. But then I would ask, "Why in the\n>|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to\n>|> fool us. I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we\n>|> know exist.\n>\n> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes. Some were\n> humans. Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.\n\nAbsolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus\nafarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into \nconsideration bilateral symmetry. Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just \nlike humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern. Her\ncranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes. There are hundreds of \nother specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially* \nreconstructed. They exist Bill. You can touch them, feel them, hold them. \nBut forget hominids. The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and \ntest out as ancient indeed. They are not reconstructions. Has God has tricked\nus here too? It won\'t go away, Bill.\n \n\n>\n>|> \n>|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this. But, Bill, if your version of all\n>|> this is absolutely correct, I\'m still no worried about my salvation. I\'ll\n>|> probaby make it (I don\'t steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other\n>|> people). All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided. \n>|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don\'t you\n>|> think? \n> Good deeds do not justify a person in God\'s sight.\n> An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.\n\nSo *you* and other fundamentalists say. What about the billions who don\'t \nsay so? Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider\neach time you think you do.\n\n>|> \n>|> > Science and\n>|> > the Bible are not in contradiction. God can supercede the scientific\n>|> > "laws" as man understands them. Creation is a good example. God has the\n>|> > power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.\n>|> \n>|> Haven\'t been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will\n>|> agree with you here. No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will. So,\n>|> what\'s the beef? (or more properly, "where\'s")\n>\n> My point: God is the creator. Look\'s like we agree.\n\nThat was not your point, Bill. Your point above was God *has* the power ....\nScientists generally agree with that. That\'s a far cry from saying God did.\nPlease attempt to understand your own posts.\n \n>|> \n>|> > If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the \n>|> > substance of the book, it must be a real laugher. Of course Jesus existed,\n>|> > and there are volumes of evidence to back it up. I can give many if you\n>|> > are interested.\n>|> \n>|> Its not a laugher, Bill. Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree\n>|> with. I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation. I know of\n>|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and\n>|> others. What I am interested is independent evidence. Do you have any? I\n>|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion. Also I know of a\n>|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians.\n>|> Do you have any independent evidence? I am most interested. Please Email or \n>|> post. Thanks, and best regards.\n>\n> I\'ll send you some info via e-mail.\n> Regards, Bill.\n\nI have your info, and I have replied - several days ago. Hope you have it. \nSomehow your post above appeared at my server only today.\n\n\nRich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota\n', "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 13\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nmathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n\n>>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?\n>>Unless you force someone to live with the rapist against his will, in which\n>>case part of the responsibility is yours.\n>I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. Unless the rapist was hypnotized or\n>something, I view him as solely responsible for his actions.\n\nNot necessarily, especially if the rapist is known as such. For instance,\nif you intentionally stick your finger into a loaded mousetrap and get\nsnapped, whose fault is it?\n\nkeith\n", 'From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)\nSubject: Re: Had to share this\nOrganization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.\nLines: 66\n\nIn article <1993Apr03.232325.23178@acme.gen.nz> kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) writes:\n>bena@dec07.cs.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:\n>\n>> Warning - if you are anything like a devout Christian this post is\n>> really going to offend and/or upset you.\n>\n>[...numerous Ctrl-Ls deleted...hehehe...]\n>\n>> I assume everyone here is familiar with the Christian fish\' symbol.\n>> The one on the back of all those Volvos.\n>> The one that looks (something) like\n>> __\n>> / \\/\n>> \\__/\\\n>> \n>> Or perhaps more like () ?\n>> \'\n>> \n>> Well, I found out this morning where it comes from ...\n>> \n>> It\'s been stolen from the pagans, like so much else ...\n>> \n>> (Last last chance to be blisfully ignorant ;-]\n>> \x0c\n>> Hmm, how can I put it.\n>> \n>> Well, it comes from, this ...\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> __\n>> \\/\n>> ()\n>> __-\'-__\'\n>> \n>> \n>> \n>> Sigh, I hate drawing with ascii chars.\n>> Still, I think you can work it out from there ...\n>\n>If you haven\'t, go read "Skinny Legs and All" by Tom Robbins. If he\'s even\n>50% accurate then most of the modern religions have been "appropriated".\n>It\'s also a great book.\n>\n>Followups to alt.atheism, whose readers are probably slightly more authorative\n>on this.\n>\n>\t\t\t\t\t\t- k\n>-- \n>Craig Harding kilroy@acme.gen.nz ACME BBS +64 6 3551342\n>"Jub\'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"\n\nCraig-\n\nI thought it was derived from a Greek acronym. My Greek isn\'t up to much, but\nit goes something like this:\n\n\tJesus Christ, God => Iesus CHristos, THeos => Ichthos\n\nwhich is the Greek for "fish" (as in, eg "ichthysaurus").\n\nApologies for my dreadful Greek! Perhaps someone will correct it.\n\nBy the way, what does your sig mean?\n\n-Norman\n', 'From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)\nSubject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!\nNntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org\nOrganization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA\nLines: 41\n\nIn article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:\n}>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n}>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:\n}>}>}(a) out of context;\n}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep\n}>}>getting subjected to. Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?\n}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.\n}>}\n}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for\n}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a\n}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?\n}>\n}>Did I either ask or assert that? Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?\n}\n}(1) Stephen said you took a quote out of context\n}(2) You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article\n} (call it A) that took a quote out of context\n}(3) But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the\n} lack of X (a common creationist error)\n}(4) So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the\n} conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A\n\nExcellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other\nthan a direct assertion by his part. For instance, am I to assume that\nyou have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said\nyour position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.\n\n}(7) I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins\n} "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended\n} to follow from the sentence that preceded it.\n\n}Is that better Jim? It\'s called an argument. If you disagree with it,\n}explain why the argument is not sound. (I admit that my assumption in (7)\n}may have been a bit hasty.) If you agree with it, just say "yup."\n\nHave you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic? You are not\ndemonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently\nlogical).\n\n\n', "From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)\nSubject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals\nNntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au\nOrganization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia\nLines: 27\n\ncfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:\n\n>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards\n>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation \n>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and \n>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis. \n>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people \n>experience. \n\nI agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You\nthink its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because\npsychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent\ncriminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think\nit's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot.\nBasically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society\nare far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the\npanic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one\nthings for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not\ndue solely to sex out of marriage.\n\nJeff.\n\n>> \n>> Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view.\n>> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au \n\n>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu \n", 'From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)\nSubject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!\nOrganization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century\nLines: 47\n\nwest@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:\n\n>The pope is jewish.... I guess they\'re right, and I always thought that\n>the thing on his head was just a fancy hat, not a Jewish headpiece (I\n>don\'t remember the name). It\'s all so clear now (clear as mud.)\n\nAs to what that headpiece is....\n\n(by chort@crl.nmsu.edu)\n\nSOURCE: AP NEWSWIRE\n\nThe Vatican, Home Of Genetic Misfits?\n\nMichael A. Gillow, noted geneticist, has revealed some unusual data\nafter working undercover in the Vatican for the past 18 years. "The\nPopehat(tm) is actually an advanced bone spur.", reveals Gillow in his\ngroundshaking report. Gillow, who had secretly studied the innermost\nworkings of the Vatican since returning from Vietnam in a wheel chair,\nfirst approached the scientific community with his theory in the late\n1950\'s.\n\n"The whole hat thing, that was just a cover up. The Vatican didn\'t\nwant the Catholic Community(tm) to realize their leader was hefting\nnearly 8 kilograms of extraneous bone tissue on the top of his\nskull.", notes Gillow in his report. "There are whole laboratories in\nthe Vatican that experiment with tissue transplants and bone marrow\nexperiments. What started as a genetic fluke in the mid 1400\'s is now\nscientifically engineered and bred for. The whole bone transplant idea\nstarted in the mid sixties inspired by doctor Timothy Leary\ntransplanting deer bone cells into small white rats." Gillow is quick\nto point out the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II and the\ndisappearance of Dr. Leary from the public eye.\n\n"When it becomes time to replace the pope", says Gillow, "The old pope\nand the replacement pope are locked in a padded chamber. They butt\nheads much like male yaks fighting for dominance of the herd. The\nvictor emerges and has earned the privilege of inseminating the choir\nboys."\n\n\nP.\n-- \n moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke\nclive p a u l m o l o n e y Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception\njames trinity college dublin and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM\n brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza \n', "From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)\nSubject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 8\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nThanks to whoever posted this wonderful parody of people who post without \nreading the FAQ! I was laughing for a good 5 minutes. Were there any \nparts of the FAQ that weren't mentioned? I think there might have been one\nor two...\n\nPlease don't tell me this wasn't a joke. I'm not ready to hear that yet...\n\nBrendan\n", 'From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)\nSubject: What we learned from the Waco wackos\nKeywords: prophet profit\nOrganization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 32\n\n\n\tThere are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:\n1)\tWhen they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What\'s\nit all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which\nmeans:\n2)\tThere\'s still plenty of  to be made in the False Jesus business\nby enterprising SubGenii. Just remember that:\n3)\tOnce you\'ve separated the pinks from their green, don\'t blow it all\non automatic weapons from Mexico. Put it in a Swiss bank account. Smile a\nlot. Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports. The Con will just\nshrug you off as long as:\n4)\tYou never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada! If\n"David Koresh" hand\'t started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he\'d\nbe working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to\nthe mulch layer in Waco. This is because:\n5)\tWhen you start shooting at cops, they\'re likely to shoot back. And \nmost of \'em are better shots than you are.\n\n\tIn short:\n\t- P.T. Barnum was right \n\t\tand\n\t- Stupidity is self-correcting\nThus endeth the lesson.\n\n\t************************************************************\n\t* \tThe_Doge of South St. Louis\t\t\t *\n\t*\t\tDobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)\t *\n\t*\t"One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm\t *\n\t*\t\t88.1 FM\t\tSt. Louis Community Radio *\n\t* "You\'ll pay to know what you *really* think!" *\n\t*\t\t\t-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"\t\t *\n\t************************************************************\n', 'From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.\nLines: 24\nIn-Reply-To: frank@D012S658.uucp\'s message of 15 Apr 1993 23:15:09 GMT\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24\n\nIn <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:\n\n(Attempting to define \'objective morality\'):\n\n> I\'ll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base\n> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly\n> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),\n> almost all would want to complain.\n\n      So long as you keep that "almost" in there, freedom will be a\nmostly valuable thing, to most people. That is, I think you\'re really\nsaying, "a real big lot of people agree freedom is subjectively valuable\nto them". That\'s good, and a quite nice starting point for a moral\nsystem, but it\'s NOT UNIVERSAL, and thus not "objective".\n\n> Therefore I take it that to assert or\n> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see\n> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on\n> a rainy day.\n\n      It isn\'t in Sahara.\n\n-- \n  Disclaimer?   "It\'s great to be young and insane!"\n',
'From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)\nSubject: Re: Who\'s next?  Mormons and Jews?\nOrganization: University of Virginia\nLines: 17\n\nKen Arromdee writes\n\n>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?\n\n>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?\n\nYes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If\nthe BDs didn\'t know immediately that they were dealing with feds\n(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty\nshort order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready\nfor having been attacked "without warning". \n\n--\nPeter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!\nAcademic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...\nUniversity of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.\npmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho\n',
"From: suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)\nSubject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses\nIn-Reply-To: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com's message of 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST\nLines: 17\nReply-To: suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi\nOrganization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia\n\t<1993Apr3.183519.14721@proxima.alt.za>\n\t<1993Apr5.112430.825@batman.bmd.trw.com>\n\n>>>>> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:\n\n:> God is eternal.    [A = B]\n:> Jesus is God.      [C = A]\n:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]\n\n:> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of\n:> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore\n:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.\n\nEverything isn't always so logical....\n\nMercedes is a car.\nThat girl is Mercedes.\nTherefore, that girl is a car?\n\n-Heikki\n",
"From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)\nSubject: Re: Question on Sabbath question; Correction\nOrganization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.\nLines: 13\n\n>> There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to\n>> worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day\n>> Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a\n>> regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and\n>> that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.\n\nJehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christians are required to observe\nthe Sabbath, whether it is on Saturday or Sunday.  The Sabbath was part\nof a Covenent between God and the Israelites and is not required for\nChristians.\n\nSteve Peterson\n\n",
"From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)\nSubject: Re: O.T.O clarification\nOrganization: The Portal System (TM)\nDistribution: world\nLines: 48\n\n930420\n\nDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.\nThe word of Sin is Restriction.\n\n\nKent (sandvik@newton.apple.com) writes:\n\nSorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C, \nI don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for\nbut O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for\nOrder of the Rose Cross. \n\n\nResponse:\n\nYes, very true.  The entire title is 'The Ancient and Mystical Order\n Rosae Crucis'.  They are located at 1342 Naglee Avenue, San Jose,\nCalifornia, 95191-0001, USA.\n\nThey are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of\nsources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure\nof H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who\nwas the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it\nis also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then\ncreated A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).\n\n\nKent:\n\nOtherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent\nmetaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.\nAnd my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.\n\n\nResponse:\n\nIndeed, and diagonally across the street is another metaphysical\nbook store called 'Ram Metaphysical', wherein I've purchased some\nwonderful works by Crowley and others.  Ram Metaphysical Books,\n1749 Park Ave., San Jose, CA.  (408) 294-2651.\n\n\nInvoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.\n\nI am I!\n\nFrater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII\n",
"From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 20\n\nPixie (dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu) wrote:\n\n:      For all the problems technology has caused, your types have made\n: things even worse.  Must we be reminded of the Inquisition, Operation\n: Rescue, the Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, the 700 Club, David Duke, Salem\n: Witch Trials, the Crusades, gay bashings, etc.\n:      PLUS virtually each and every single war, regardless of the level of\n: technology, has had theistic organizations cheering on the carnage\n: (chaplains, etc.), and claiming that god was in favor of the whole ordeal. \n: Don't forget to pray for our troops!\n:      \n\nThis is really tedious. Every bad thing that's ever happened is\nbecause the malefactors were under the influence of religion - does\nanyone -really- believe that. I've seen it so often it must be a\npretty general opinion in a.a, but I want to believe that atheists are\nreally not THAT dishonest. Please, stick to the facts and, having\naccomplished that, interpret them correctly.\n\nBill\n",
'From:  (Rashid)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nNntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179\nOrganization: NH\nLines: 31\n\nIn article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,\ndarice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:\n> \n> >In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:\nStuff deleted\n> >>What we should be demanding, is for Khomeini and his ilk to publicly\n> >>come clean and to show their proof that Islamic Law punishes\n> >>apostacy with death or that it tolerates any similar form of\n> >>coversion of freedom of conscience.\n\nAll five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the\ndeath sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent,\nand aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise\nI agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief.\nThe Qur\'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public\nor private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not\npunishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this\ntrend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but\nhistorically they are the exception.\n\nCursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".\n\n> \n> I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini\'s fatwa etc.\n>Lots of stuff deleted<\n> \n> And, according to the above analysis, it looks like Khomeini\'s offering\n> of a reward for Rushdie\'s death in fact constitutes a criminal act\n> according to Islamic law.\n\nPlease see my post under "Re: Yet more Rushdie (ISLAMIC LAW)".\n',
"From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)\nSubject: Re: I don't beleive in you either.\nNntp-Posting-Host: crchh410\nOrganization: BNR, Inc.\nLines: 9\n\nIn article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu>, smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes:\n|> I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology.\n|> \n|> --GOD\n|> \n\nAhhh go back to alt.autotheism where you belong!\n\nBrian /-|-\\\n",
'From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)\nSubject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)\nOrganization: AT&T\nDistribution: na\nLines: 29\n\nIn article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:\n> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:\n> >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must\n> >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for\n> >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants\n> >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and\n> >    reinterpret the bits that don\'t match with one\'s desires.  It\n> >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing\n> >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.\n> >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect\n> >    to join.  There are just so many.\n> >     \n> >    Dean Kaflowitz\n> > \n> > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus\n> > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a\n> > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So\n> > convenient that it is burdensome at times.\n> \n> Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday\n> cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.\n\n\nMake that 20%.  Where did I see that poll recently about the\nvery religious and adultery?  Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism\nor some other place?\n\nDean Kaflowitz\n\n',
"From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: islamic authority over women\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]\nLines: 8\n\nKeith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:\n\n: \tNice cop out bill.\n\nI'm sure you're right, but I have no idea to what you refer. Would you\nmind explaining how I copped out?\n\nBill\n",
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 13\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>>Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups\n>>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.\n>So, why "must" they have such laws?\n\nThe quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."\n\nIf there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,\netc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society\ninto chaos.\n\nkeith\n',
"From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 17\n\nIn article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:\n\n\n>Really? You don't know what objective value is? If I offered the people\n>of the U.S., collectively,$1 for all of the land in America, would that \n>sound like a good deal?  \n\nThat happens to be a subjective example that the people of the\nUS would happen to agree on.  Continue to move the price up; \nat some point a few people would accept then more then more until \nprobably all would accept at a high enough number.\n\nEndpoints of a subjective scale are not the given homes of \nobjective viewpoints.\n\n-jim halat\n\n",
'From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 32\n\njaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n> Why would the Rushdie case be particularly legitimate? As I\'ve said\n> elsewhere on this issue, Rushdie\'s actions had effects in Islamic\n> countries so that it is not so simple to say that he didn\'t commit\n> a crime in an Islamic country.\n\nActually, it is simple.\n\nA person P has committed a crime C in country X if P was within the borders\nof X at the time when C was committed.  It doesn\'t matter if the physical\nmanifestation of C is outside X.\n\nFor instance, if I hack into NASA\'s Ames Research Lab and delete all their\nfiles, I have committed a crime in the United Kingdom.  If the US authorities\nwish to prosecute me under US law rather than UK law, they have no automatic\nright to do so.\n\nThis is why the net authorities in the US tried to put pressure on some sites\nin Holland.  Holland had no anti-cracking legislation, and so it was viewed\nas a "hacker haven" by some US system administrators.\n\nSimilarly, a company called Red Hot Television is broadcasting pornographic\nmaterial which can be received in Britain.  If they were broadcasting in\nBritain, they would be committing a crime.  But they are not, they are\nbroadcasting from Denmark, so the British Government is powerless to do\nanything about it, in spite of the apparent law-breaking.\n\nOf course, I\'m not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.  More confusingly, I could\nbe right in some countries but not in others...\n\n\nmathew\n',
"From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 33\n\nIn article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n>\n>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.\n>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the\n>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that\n>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient \n>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue\n>is his status at the time the crime was committed. \n\n\nI'd have to say that I have a problem with any organization, \nreligious or not, where the idea that _simple speech_ such\nas this is the basis for a crime.\n\n-jim halat                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n                                                                          \n",
'From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)\nSubject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)\nOrganization: University of Georgia, Athens\nLines: 80\n\nIn article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:\n\n>Perhaps you don\'t get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn\'t get it in the\n>Middle Ages and the proclaimed God\'s will be done as they massacred thousands\n>in witch hunts and inquisitions.\n\nThere were many injustices in the middle ages.  And this is truely sad.\nI would hate to see a day when churches put people to death or torchured\nthem for practicing homosexuality, or any other crime.  The church is not\ncalled to take over the governments of the world.  It may be that homosexuals\ntreated cruelly today, but that does not mean that we should teach \nChristians to practice homosexual immorality.  Do you think that we should\nalso teach Christians to practice divination and channelling because\nthe witches in the middle ages were persecuted.\n\n\n>The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the\n>final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a\n>"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we\'ll love you. This is\n>sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"\n>love, one that calls people "just as they are."\n\nAnd you accuse me of judging?  When did you look into my heart and see\nif I have love.  I have been writing that we should not teach Christians\nto practice homosexual immorality, and you pretend to have divine knowledge\nto look into my heart.  I can\'t say that I love homosexuals as I should-\nI can\'t say that I love my neighbor as I should either.  I don\'t know\nvery many homosexuals as it is.  \n\nBut Jesus loves homosexuals, just as He loves everyone else.  If His love\nwere conditional, I not know Him at all.  Yes.  We should show love to \nhomosexuals, but it is not love to encourage brothers in the church to \nstumble and continue in their sin.  That is a very damaging and dangerous \nthing.\n\n>The results of the passing amendment in\n>Colorado has created an organization who\'s posters are appearing all over\n>Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,\n>but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto\n>is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.\n>\n>This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are\n>embracing.\n\nThat is slander.   I could just as easily say  that NAMBLA has been able\nto implement legislation to make child molesting easier because of\nthe tearing down of societies morality due to people accepting homosexuality\nas normal, and that this is what you are embracing.  I do believe\nthat homosexual sex is immoral, that does not mean I endorse using violence\nagainst them.  There is a problem of hatred in the church.  But there\nis also the problem of what has been called "unsanctified mercy."\nMany in the conservative churches have seen the moral breakdown in \nthis country and the storm on the horizon, and have gotten militant in \nthe flesh.  This is truely sad.  Yet others in other churches have \nembraced immorality in society, and have pointed to the carnality in the\nconservative churches to justify their actions.  \n\n>Why don\'t we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people\n>to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?\n\nCertainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.\nBut we shouldn\'t water down the gospel to draw people in.  Jesus didn\'t\ngo out of His way to show only what might be considered positive aspects\nto draw people in.  He told one man to sell all He had.  He told\nanother not to say good bye to His family.  His words were hard at times.\nWe should present people with the cost of the tower before we allow them\nto begin construction.  many people have already been innoculated to the\ngospel.\n\nLink Hudson.\n\n\n\n\n>\n>Whatever\n>\n>Rich :-(\n\n\n',
"Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution\nFrom: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 10\n\nIn article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:\n>In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:\n\nDan Johnson-\n\nYou don't know me, but take this hand anyway.  Bravo for GO(DS) = 0. \nBeautiful!  Simply beautiful!\n\n-jim halat\n\n",
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 38\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n|> In article <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> #In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n|> #|> In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> #|> \n|> #|> I forget the origin of the quote, but "I gotta use words when I talk to\n|> #|> you".  An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, yes?  If so, then\n|> #|> it\'s entirely plausible that an atheist could dig Lenin or Lennon to\n|> #|> such an extent that it might be considered "worship", and still be\n|> #|> an atheist.  Anything else seems to be Newspeak.\n|> #\n|> #Ask yourself the following question.   Would you regard an ardent\n|> #Nazi as a republican, simply because Germany no longer had a Kaiser?\n|> \n|> No, because that\'s based on false dichotomy.   There are more options\n|> than you present me.  \n\nAnd that, of course, is the point.   You can\'t simply divide the\nworld into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.\n\nIf all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and\nhave nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural\nbeing is your criterion.\n\nBut once you start talking about behaviour, then someone\'s suscept-\nibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you \nare - I assume - worried about.\n\nAnd in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,\ncritical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and\neasily led on the other.\n\nI would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates\nthat a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief \nin a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be\nbeside the point.\n\njon.\n',
"From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)\nSubject: Wanted: Moltmann's God in Creation\nOrganization: Not important\nLines: 15\n\nI'm greatly in need of Jurgen\nMoltmann's book God in Creation:\nAn Ecological Doctrine of Creation.\n\nIf you have a copy you're willing to\npart with, I'd love to hear from you\nsoon.  You may call me at 312-702-\n8367 or e-mail me.\n\nThanks.\n\n==========================================================================================\nSusan Soric\nIndependent agent\nsusan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu\n",
'From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)\nSubject: Re: Who\'s next?  Mormons and Jews?\nOrganization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.\nLines: 22\nNntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu\n\nIn article <1r1i41$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:\n>\n>Just maybe you won\'t be home. Then you can come home to something \n>like this:\n>\n> "Well, it\'s been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster. "I\n> just get laid off, and my divorce became final. But I just wasn\'t\n> ready for what happened this particular Monday."\n\n[horror story about FBI ruining a guy\'s life for the hell of it omitted]\n\n>So if you don\'t want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make\n>sure your lawyer isn\'t there, there\'s a good chap.\n\nSo, is this a real story or a work of fiction? How about some\nsources? When, where, and in what newspaper did you get all this\nfrom? Or is it all hypothetical?\n-- \n+------------------------+------------------------------------+\n| David Charlap | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniac |\n| dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates |\n+------------------------+------------------------------------+\n', " uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nFrom: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\nLines: 15\n\nbobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:\n\n>My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be\n>cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.\n\nIt can be painless, so it isn't cruel. And, it has occurred frequently\nsince the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.\n\n>I don't take issue with the numbers. A single innocent life taken\n>is one too many.\n\nBut, innocents die due to many causes. Why have you singled out\naccidental or false execution as the one to take issue with?\n\nkeith\n", 'From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: [lds] Hal\'s reply\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 38\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu\n\nIn article <C51nLs.7As@boi.hp.com>, hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) writes...\n\n[...Dr. England\'s story deleted, it was a nice read the first time \nthrough...]]\n\n>now lead the Church. I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if \n>those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are \n>intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical \n>scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication \n>than mainstream Christianity would give it. \n\n\tIt isn\'t so much a matter of \'interpretation\' of Bible texts \nthat sets Mormonism apart from orthodoxy as it is a matter of \n*fabrication*.\n\n\tAbout 20 years ago, _National Lampoon_ had some comic strips \nin them that were drawn by Neal Adams. They were called "Son o\' God" comics. \nIt was a parody of the Jesus in the Bible. In the comic, there were a \ngroup of thirteen Jewish kids from Brooklyn, and when one of them said \nthe magic word, he turned into "Son o\' God." He went from a myopic, \ncurly headed, yarmulke wearing boy to a replica of the stylizied \nportraits of Jesus --- with long flowing brown hair and gentile \nfeatures.\t\n\n\tNow, if someone were to profess faith in this NatLamp Jesus, \nand claim that they were a Christian because they believed in this \nNatLamp Jesus, we would have to say that this was fallacious since \nthis Jesus was a fabrication, and did not really exist.\n\n\tThis is the exact same thing that the LDS do when they claim \nthat they are Christian. They profess faith in Jesus, but the Jesus \nthat they profess to have faith in is as much a fabrication as the \nNatLamp Jesus was.\n\n\n=============================\nRobert Weiss\npsyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu\n', "From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Re: Hitler - pagan or Christian? (Was: Martin Luther...)\n\t<93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.\nLines: 10\n\nIn article <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> \nczl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:\n>In article <93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:\n>>The Irish have their version of the swastica called St. Brigid's cross.\n>There's also the three-legged symbol of the Isle of Man.\n\nThe three-legged symbol is a bit different, there is a word for them but\nI can't recall it, tri something, trieskalon?, don't know. These have\nmore to do with the triple goddess in her three phases as reflected in\nfemales: girl-woman-crone.\n", 'From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)\nSubject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention\nOrganization: The Brewers\' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US\nLines: 72\n\nlowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:\n\n> In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony\n> >\n> >\n> >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider\n> >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought\n> >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,\n> >would amuse you all...\n> >\n> >\n> >     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern \n> >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President\n> >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX \n> >77706. \n> > \n> <much drivel deleted>\n> >     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His \n> >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."\n> >Page 30. \n> > \n> >     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity \n> >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen \n> >in the writings of the \'great\' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. \n> <more drivel deleted>\n> >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,\n> >\n> >\n> >Tony   \n> A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that\n> any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the\n> future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,\n> and Charlie Manson.\n> \n> --Uncle Wolf\n> --Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)\n> --Babtized a Southern Babtist\n> --And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.\n> \n> > \n> > \n> \n> \n\n\nNot to worry.  The Masons have been demonized and harrassed by almost \nevery major Xian church there is.  For centuries now.  And still they \nstand.  They wil withstand the miserable Southern Boobtists, I am sure.\nThey may even pick up a little support as people start to listen to the \nBoobtists and realize that subtracting the obvious lies and claims of \nSatanism that the Masons sound pretty good by comparison.  One thing is \nknown.  A sizable proportion of Southern Babtists are Masons!  And the \nMasons have already fired back in their own magazines against the \nBoobtist Witch-hunt.\n  Since the Consrervatives have already been a divisive element with \ntheir war on Boobtist moderates and liberals, they may now start in on \ntheir Mason/Boobtist brothers and hasten their own downfall as more and \nmore Southern Boobtists realize their church can\'t stand being run by a \nhandful of clowns looking for holy civil wars and purity tests and drop \n\'em out of the leadership positions they have taken over.\n  So as far as I am concerned, the louder, ruder, and more outrageous \nan Anti-Masonic Crusade these old goats mount, the better.\n\nPop some pocorn and get a center row seat.  The circus is about to begin.\nAnd, Oh Look!  HERE COME THE CLOWNS!\n\n\nPope Charles    Slack!\n\n------------------\npopec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)\nOrigin: The Brewers\' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350\n',
'From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nSubject: Re: <<Pompous ass\nOrganization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <1ql6jiINN5df@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>\n>The "little\' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People\n>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.\n>They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they\n>weren\'t going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one\n>knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.\n\n  If the Anne Frank exhibit makes it to your small little world,\n  take an afternoon to go see it.  \n\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n',
"From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\nOrganization: University of Southern Queensland\nLines: 42\n\nbissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:\n\n>\tFirst I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It \n\nI _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but...   :-)\n\n[bit deleted]\n\n>\tThe book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a \n>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.\n>\tSome reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would \n>die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People \n>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing \n>someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did \n>heal people.  \n>\tNiether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn \n>to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example \n>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see \n>this right away.\n>\tTherefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the \n>real thing.  \n\nRighto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...\n\nThe book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a \nmodern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he said he was.\nSome reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would \ndie for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People \ngathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing \nhow his son-in-law made the sun stand still.  Call me a fool, but I believe \nhe did make the sun stand still.  \nNiether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn \nto someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example \nanyone who is drawn to the Mad Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see \nthis right away.\nTherefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the \nreal thing.  \n\n--\n\nRon House.                 USQ\n(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.\n",
'From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:\n>What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning? \n>COuldn\'t that be wrong?\n>\n\n  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the\n  existence of any god.  Don\'t fall into the "atheists don\'t believe\n  because of their pride" mistake.\n\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n',
'From: critus@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michael J. Abboud)\nSubject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions\nOrganization: University of Nebraska at Omaha\n  When we speak of the Bible and its apparant contradictions, we would do well to remember the context in\n  If we are to accept this line of reason, remembering that it does not\n  As my study of the Christian Religion has progressed over the years, I have\n  It matters little to me, as a concession in either serves my purpose\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 6\n\ncritus\n\n\n\n\n  \n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu\n(Ken Arromdee) wrote:\n> \n> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire\n> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.\n> \n> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been\n> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and\n> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly\n> disinterested observers.\n\nThere's another point to be made. Those who have been inside burning\nhouses know that if they want to stay alive, it's better to run out\nfrom the building. We had one case where an FBI agent *had to \ndrag out a women* from the burning house, she run back in when\nshe saw the forces arriving. It is a good indication of the fanatical\nmind that the followers had -- including having they children burned\ninstead of saving these innocent victims of the instance.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)\nSubject: Re: Language and agreement\nOrganization: Intelligent Systems Program\nLines: 59\n\nI responded to Jim\'s other articles today, but I see that I neglected\nto respond to this one.  I wouldn\'t want him to think me a hypocrite\nfor not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.\n\nm23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:\n>From my handy dictionary:\n[dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted]\n>Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".\n\nOh, but I\'m weary of trying to wade through Jim\'s repertoire of \nred herrings and smoke screens.\n\nLet\'s see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today\nthrough the \'discord\' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont\nwas kind enough to send me):\n\n\tTaking action? A white geese be held\n\tas an accomplice to be held as\n\ta decision upon the door\n\tA black and white goose waddles past\n\tthe eyes of the door. \n\tHits it with the confidence interval for \n\tthat individual is held responsible \n\tfor that, that individual \n\tmay be held as a \n\tgetaway car may be held \n\tas an uncountably large number \n\tof the driver of something \n\tand agree.\n\n\tA black goose \n\twaddles past the person imprisoned?\n\n\tWhite goose waddles past the \n\tconfidence interval for the population \n\tof geese be axed, \n\tfine.\n\tAnd white goose \n\twaddles past the door.\n\nDoes running Jim\'s articles through \'discord\' make them more\ncoherent?  Less coherent?\n\nOr has \'discord\' turned Jim\'s articles into an angst-ridden poem\nabout making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being\nheld responsible for the choices we make?  Do the geese symbolize\nan inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be\nblack and white, with no shades of gray?  Does the "getaway car"\ntell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our\nbeing is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions,\nbut rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the\n"driver" of the getaway car, as it were?  Does the juxtaposition\nof man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal\nconflict between determinism and moral responsibility?\n\nOr am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and\na random number generator?\n\ndj\n',
'From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\nSubject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!\nIn-Reply-To: <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu>\'s message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:50:02 EDT\nOrganization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24\nLines: 12\n\nIn <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:\n\n      Who cares what the fellow wrote anyway? I mean, it came from\nPSUVM, so how could it possibly have been of any importance?\n\n=====\n\n(disperse smileys until no longer offended)\n\n\n-- \n  Disclaimer?   "It\'s great to be young and insane!"\n',
'From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Who, me???\nLines: 15\n\nIn article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:\n>In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin\n>Darcy) wrote:\n>> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the\n>> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --\n>> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in\n>> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human\n>> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as \n>> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.\n>\n>And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.\n\nI\'ll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t- Kevin\n',
"From: Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: It's all Mary's fault!\nOrganization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 23\nNNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu\n\nYou know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing\ncan be blamed solely on Mary.\n\nSo, she's married to Joseph.  She gets knocked up.  What do you think\nol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around?  So Mary comes up\nwith this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.  Actually, it\ncan't be all THAT ridiculous, considering the number of people that\nbelieve it.  Anyway, she never tells anyone the truth, and even tells\npoor little Jesus that he's hot shit, the Son of God.  Everyone else\ntells him this too, since they've bought Mary's story.  So, what does\nMary actually turn out to be?  An adultress and a liar, and the cause of\nmankind's greatest folly...\n\nJust my recently-minted two cents.\n\nChris\n\n----------------------\nChris Leger\nSophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering\nRemember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always\nignore them!\n\n",
'From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)\nSubject: Question about Islamic view   \nOrganization: Idaho River Country, The Salmon, Payette, Clearwater, Boise, Selway, Priest.\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]\nLines: 8\n\nA question regarding the Islamic view towards homosexuality came up in a\ndiscussion group that I participate in, and I\'d like to ask the question here,\n\n"What is the Islamic view towards homosexuality?"             \n\nJim Burrill\njburrill@boi.hp.com\n\n',
'From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)\nSubject: Re: Where are they now?\nOrganization: Salvation Army Draft Board\nLines: 31\n\nIn article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM writes:\n>Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable\n>posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the\n>subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question\n>was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for\n>the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is\n>such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I\n>saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:\n>\n>>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)\n>>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)\n>>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)\n>>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)\n>>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)\n>>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)\n>\n>An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?\n\nDidn\'t you hear? His address has changed. He can be reached at the \nfollowing address:\n\ndkoresh@branch.davidian.compound.waco.tx.us\n\nI think he was last seen posting to alt.messianic.\n\nJim\n--\nIf God is dead and the actor plays his part | -- Sting,\nHis words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History\nWithout the voice of reason every faith is its own curse | Will Teach Us\nWithout freedom from the past things can only get worse | Nothing\n', 'From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God\'s Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nOrganization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.\nLines: 16\n\nIn article <bskendigC5I9yH.ICp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:\n\n>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,\n>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.\n>Be warned, however, that I\'ve heard all the most common arguments\n>before, and they just don\'t convince me.\n\nBe warned, it is not my job to convert you. That is the job of\nthe Holy Spirit. And I, frankly, make a lousy one. I am only\nhere to testify. Your conversion is between you and God. I am\n"out of the loop". If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I\nindeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.\n\n-------------\nBrian Ceccarelli\nbrian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu\n', 'From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Second Law (was: Albert Sabin)\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 20\n\nJoel Hanes (jjh00@diag.amdahl.com) wrote:\n\n: Mr Connor\'s assertion that "more complex" == later in paleontology\n: is simply incorrect. Many lineages are known in which whole\n: structures are lost -- for example, snakes have lost their legs.\n: Cave fish have lost their eyes. Some species have almost completely\n: lost their males. Kiwis are descended from birds with functional\n: wings.\n\nJoel,\n\nThe statements I made were illustrative of the inescapably\nanthrpomorphic quality of any desciption of an evolutionary process.\nThere is no way evolution can be described or explained in terms other\nthan teleological, that is my whole point. Even those who have reason\nto believe they understand evolution (biologists for instance) tend to\npersonify nature and I can\'t help but wonder if it\'s because of the\nlimits of the language or the nature of nature.\n\nBill\n', 'Subject: Re: "lds" Rick\'s reply\nFrom: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>\nOrganization: Brigham Young University\nLines: 159\n\n\nRobert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:\n\n#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...\n#\n#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,\n#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:\n#ra>\n\n(...)\n\n# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to\n# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may\n# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith\n# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is\n# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.\n\nIt may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say\n"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others. You\'re right, "the\nbottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else. Since you\nproclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what\nauthority you do this? Because "it says so in the Bible?" --Does the\nBible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a\nscripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?\n\nExcuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven\'t moved me one bit to persuade\nme that my beliefs are erroneous. Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on\nthis net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking\ncrew, with no positive message to me or any other Latter-day Saint...\nBTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus\nto the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,\nbut your hearts are far removed from me..."\n\n# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created\n# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon\n# belief..." You can\'t grant your conclusion and then expect the point to\n# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address\n# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the\n# conclusion that you grant.\n\nSophistry. Look who\'s talking: "jumping to conclusions?" You wouldn\'t do\nthat yourself, right? All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless\nwhether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points\nof view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration\nwhatsoever.\n\n#\n# The Bible states that Lucifer was created. The Bible states that Jesus\n# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS\n# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.\n\nA beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation\nof lds doctrine. The former KGB would have loved to employ you.\nJesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.\n\n(...)\n\n# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is\n# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible\n# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:\n\nCorrection: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says. The Bible\nindeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they\n"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps. Satan and his followers have\nrebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"\nbut it doesn\'t mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to\nseparate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of\nsalvation.\n\n#\n# The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the\n# kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";\n# (Matthew 13:38)\n\nSo? --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the\nkingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus\n(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the\nwicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb. The issue\nof satan\'s spirit-origin (and of those who followed him) has not been\naddressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible. You\npurposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-\nrelated scriptures.\n\n(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)\n\n#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know\n#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."\n#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the\n#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly\n#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of\n#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim\n\nCorrection: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be\nreconciled with the Jesus in the Bible. --Not your interpretation of Him,\nI concur, but I honestly couldn\'t care less.\n\n#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the\n#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and\n#ra> > not the construct of imagination.\n\nIn this single posting of yours, I\'ve seen more "constructs of imagination"\nthan in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news\ngroup. First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us\nabout "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes\nand dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about\nHim myself. I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other\nfaiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different\nway or fashion than your own. Not that it really matters, the mission\nand progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob\nor opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited\nevery continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.\n\n# This is really a red herring. It doesn\'t address any issue raised, but\n# rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read\n# something into the Bible, doesn\'t change what the Bible teaches.\n\nSigh. "What the Bible teaches"? Or: "what the bible teaches according to\nRobert Weiss and co.?" I respect the former, I reject the latter without\nthe remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus. On the contrary. And by\nthe way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you\nbeing a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a\nChristian (following my own image of Him in my heart).\n\n(...)\n\n# Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of\n# Bruce McConkie and whether his views were \'official doctrine.\' I don\'t\n# think that it matters if McConkie\'s views were canon. That is not the\n# issue. Were McConkie\'s writings indicative of Mormon belief on this\n# subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may\n# certainly be.\n\nThe issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-\nrepresent or ridicule the lds church. The issue of "official doctrine"\nis obviously very important. McConkie\'s views have been controversial\n(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic! ;-) at best,\nor erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this\ndispensation"). I respect him as someone who has made his valuable\ncontribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal\ninterpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to\nas "McConkie\'s Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine. I rather\nlook to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley\'s books!\n(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.) Summarizing: McConkie\nwas a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of\nGod than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted\ndoctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and\nspeculation. But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most\nbiased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the\ntrash coming from your proverbial pen. I\'m somewhat appalled that I have\nallowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...\n\n=============================\nRobert Weiss\npsyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu\n\n\nCasper C. Knies isscck@byuvm.bitnet\nBrigham Young University isscck@vm.byu.edu\nUCS Computer Facilities\n', "Organization: City University of New York\nFrom: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>\nSubject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick\nDistribution: world\n <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>\n <Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu>\n <JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>\nLines: 38\n\n\nWhat an exciting thread (finally!)\n\nMitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu\n mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence\n worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is\n the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by\n soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-\n antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and\n grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.\n\nWorship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.\n\nHundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman\n Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of\n Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship\n was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership\n in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in\n ancient times is fascinating!\n\nOh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.\n\nI am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the\n Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels\n of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns\n in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure\n that they had Mithraic significance or not.\n\nI don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the\n Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.\n\nSomeone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More\n likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed\n by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all\n throughout even up to France bigtime.\n-------\nCHARLES HOPE A54SI@CUNYVM A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\nGOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.\n", 'From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)\nSubject: Re: Religion and homosexuality\nKeywords: being liberal\nOrganization: University of Georgia, Athens\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.182411.7621@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:\n>First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly\n>mentioned in the bibles, so you\'re off the hook there,\n\nActually, there is one condemnation of lesbian acts in the Bible, Romans\n1:26.\n\nI think. In\n>any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who\n>do not consider a person\'s sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual\n>as an "immoral lifestyle choice"\n\nThere are plenty who don\'t read the Bible.\nOr pray for that matter.\n\nLink Hudson.\n\n\n', 'From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)\nSubject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions\nDistribution: usa\nOrganization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.\nLines: 37\n\nJim Brown wrote :\n\n[ deleted ]\n>I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical \n>contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully\n>wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are\n>being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out. Either way, they\n>leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that\'s just the\n>KJV, that\'s not what my XXX version says."\n[ deleted ]\n\n Unfortunately, it\'s not that simple. The KJV is preferred by the majority\nof fundamentalists (at least here). The second part of your argument fails\nas well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the\nKJV).\n\n[ deleted ]\n>I\'ve based my argument on one of the best modern translations\n>available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars."\n[ deleted ]\n\n I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal\nto authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are\n"better". A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but\nthose scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this\nphrase to describe any theologians that they don\'t agree with).\n\n[ deleted ]\n>>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth\n>>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.\n[ deleted ]\n\n The verse being discussed clearly claims that sympathetic magic works (i.e.\nplacing stripped sticks in the cattle breeding grounds causes stripped and\nspotted calves to be born) and should be attacked on that basis (no biologist\nhas ever observed this claimed correlation).\n\n', "From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: 18 Apr 93 God's Promise in Philippians 4:9\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 8\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu\n\n\n\tThose things,\n\twhich ye have both learned, and received,\n\tand heard, and seen in me,\n\tdo:\n\tand the God of peace shall be with you.\n\n\tPhilippians 4:9\n", 'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 23\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nkmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n\n>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution. They\n>>picked words whose meanings implied the intent. We have already looked\n>>in the dictionary to define the word. Isn\'t this sufficient?\n>We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers \n>consider cruel and unusual punishment?\n\n>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very \n>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.\n\nWell, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.\n\n>Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those \n>days ], etc. \n>All would be considered cruel under your definition.\n>All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.\n\nAnd, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too. And, if these\nthings were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution\n(painless) would not be, either.\n\nkeith\n', 'From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org\nSubject: God\'s promise to the righteous\nOrganization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway\nLines: 3\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu\n\nPs.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."\n\nIsa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."\n', 'From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Netcom. San Jose, California\nLines: 91\n\nfrank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes ...\n> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:\n>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes ...\n>#>Plus questions for you: why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so \n>#>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism? \n>#\n>#To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the\n>#truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to\n>#control events.\n>\n>I think you lose the right to talk about THE truth once you say values are\n>relative. Accuracy is a value judgement, too. It so happens I agree with \n>the substance of what you say below, but it\'s clear to me that at least \n>*some* values are objective. Truth is better than falsehood, peace is\n>better than war, education is better than ignorance. We know these things,\n>if we know anything.\n\nWhile I\'ll agree that these are generally held to be "good things", I\nquestion whether they come very close to being objective values.\nEspecially considering that at one time or another each has been\nviewed as being undesirable. I doubt you could even come up with\nanything that could be said to be universally "good" or "bad".\n\nAnd when I referred to "the truth" I was using the term\nhypothetically, realizing full well that there may not even be such a\nthing.\n\n>#Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two\n>#relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute\n>#truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that\n>#produces the desired results.\n>\n>No they cannot, because they acknowledge up front that THE desired\n>results do not exist. That, after all, is the meaning of compromise.\n>\n>Plus some problems: If the relativists have no values in common, compromise \n>is impossible - what happens then? Who, if anyone, is right? What happens \n>if one relativist has a value "Never compromise?". A value "plant bombs in \n>crowded shopping areas"? After all, if morals are relative, these values \n>cannot *meaningfully* be said to be incorrect.\n\nTrue enough. But they cannot be said to be anything more than\npersonal morals. One thing notably lacking in most extremists is any\nsense of _personal_ accountability - the justification for any\nsocially unacceptable behaviour is invariably some "higher authority"\n(aka, absolute moral truth).\n\n>#Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing \n>#objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there\n>#is no room for compromise. Once you beleive in absolute morals,\n>#you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees\n>#with you is amoral.\n>\n>Untrue. One can accept that one does not know the whole truth. Part\n>of the objective truth about morality may well be that flexibility is\n>better than rigidity, compromise is better than believing you have a lock\n>on morals, etc. In the same way, I can believe in an objective reality\n>without claiming to know the mechanism for quantum collapse, or who shot\n>JFK.\n\nAn objective truth that says one cannot know the objective truth?\nInteresting notion. :-)\n\nCertainly one can have as one\'s morals a belief that compromise is\ngood. But to compromise on the absolute truth is not something most\npeople do very successfully. I suppose one could hold compromise as\nbeing an absolute moral, but then what happens when someone else\ninsists on no compromise? How do you compromise on compromising?\n\n>#Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,\n>#I\'d say that compromise seems to be "better".\n>\n>And I would agree. But it\'s bloody to pointless to speak of it if it\'s\n>merely a matter of taste. Is your liking for peace any better founded\n>than someone else\'s liking for ice-cream? I\'m looking for a way to say\n>"yes" to that question, and relativism isn\'t it.\n\nAlmost invariably when considering the relative value of one thing\nover another, be it morals or consequences, people only consider those\naspects which justify a desired action or belief. In justifying a\ncommitement to peace I might argue that it lets people live long &\nhealthy and peaceful lives. While that much may well be true, it is\nincomplete in ignoring the benefits of war - killing off the most\nagressive member of society, trimming down the population, stimulating\nproduction. The equation is always more complex than presented.\nTo characterize relative morals as merely following one\'s own\nconscience / desires is to unduly simplify it.\n\n-- \nRay Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth\nray@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietzsche\n', 'From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu\nSubject: Re: thoughts on christians\nOrganization: Macalester College\nLines: 94\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:\n> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n> : In article <1q338l$cva@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric\n> : Molas) wrote:\n> : > Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are \n> : > because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life\n> : > a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is \n> : > follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."\n> : \n> : I agree that in many cases primitive emotional feelings based on\n> : \'haha, you won\'t laugh in hell\' mentalities makes certain religions\n> : very attractive for certain personalities.\n> \n> I agree with both of u, but I would like to make a small point.  Xtianity, &\n> other dogmatic religions, not only attract people without hope etc but\n> also attract "average" people as well.  I believe that Xtainity, thru\n> its escapist doctrines & absolutist attitudes, provides great psychological \n> shelter from day-to-day frustrations, unhappiness & fear of uncertainty \n> & unknown etc.\n>\n\nThis is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity\nso much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their\nsocial life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of\nimmigrants for example.  Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the\nWestern World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if\nthey are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong\nTOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary.  Seems a little weak, but as long as it\ndoesn\'t hurt anybody...\n \n> The Buddha had something to say about the attractiveness of religions:\n> \n>    "When driven by fear, man worships sacred mountains, sacred stones, \n> \tand sacred trees." \n> \n> However, the Buddha also said,\n> \n> \t"If somebody finds peace in any religion, let him be".\n> \n> \n\nThese are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let\'s make sure to\nalter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as\nhe is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that. \n(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no\nneed for inflicting evangelism)\n\n\n> Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful\n> psychological effect, we should let theists be.  But the problem is that\n> religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole\n> (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science\n> & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc.  Need I say more?).\n> I really don\'t know what we can do about them.  Any comments?\n> \nWell, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives.  Their\npopularity seems to come and go.  I remember when I first entered High School,\nI was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends.  At this\ntime, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also\nimmigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross\ngeneralization).  Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it\never has before (since I\'ve been noticing).  Maybe it is just my perceptions\nthat are chagning.  Who knows?\nI for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we\nhave some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:\nI have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions.  For all the well-put\narguments on this usenet, it never does any good.  Argumentation does not\nreally seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a\nstep the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...\n\n\nbest regards,\n\n********************************************************************************\n* Adam John Cooper\t\t"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *\n*\t\t\t\t   who thought themselves good simply because  *\n* acooper@macalstr.edu\t\t\t\tthey had no claws."\t       *\n********************************************************************************\n>\n--\n> \n> The UnEnlightened One\n> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------\n>                   | "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be \n> Tan Chade Meng    | expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it\n> Singapore         | transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology;\n> cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is\n>                   | based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience\n>                   | of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful\n>                   | unity"     --  Einstein\n> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------\n> \n> \n> \n',
'From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God\'s Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nOrganization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco\nLines: 47\n\nbrian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:\n>\n>Brian Kendig contorts . . .\n>\n>>\tIt can not be a light which cleanses\n>>\tif it is tainted with the blood\n>>\tof an innocent man.\n>\n>. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the \n>most fundamental basic of the Old Testament.  Concepts like\n>santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you.  Too bad\n>you are not interested in understanding.  Too bad you prefer\n>blurting folly even to your own shame.\n\n  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given\n  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is\n  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.\n\nThe Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It\nmakes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"\nmoral wrongdoing.\n\nI know about sanctification.  I\'ve been taught all about it in Sunday\nschool, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all\nthat, I still can\'t accept it.  Maybe I\'m still not understanding it,\nor maybe I\'m just understanding it all too well.\n\nFrom the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent\nman is wrong.  I\'ve tried repeatedly over the course of several years\nto accept it, but I just can\'t.  If this means that I can\'t accept the\npremise that a god who would allow this is \'perfectly good\', then so\nbe it.\n\n>     What ignorance you can show us next?  I guess I\'ll wait\n>till tomorrow.\n\nIf you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,\nthen I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.\nBe warned, however, that I\'ve heard all the most common arguments\nbefore, and they just don\'t convince me.\n\n-- \n_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun\n/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j\'ai vus; j\'ose croire\n_/_/                            n\'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.\n  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.\n /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau\n',
'From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)\nSubject: Re: Flaming Nazis\nReply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu\nOrganization: Brandeis University\nLines: 94\n\nIn article <1qsami$3h7@access.digex.net>, dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)\nwrites:\n>The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his\n>buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the\n>Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP\n>were purged. \n\nStop! Hold it! You have a few problems here. Official history says that \nthe first accusations of homosexuality in the SA came from OUTSIDE of the Nazi \nparty, long BEFORE the Nazis ever came to power. So this objection is a red\nherring, even if established history is wrong on this point. Moreover, none of \nthe histories I\'ve read ever made mention of Hitler or anyone else ever using \nhomosexuality as a pretext for purging Roehm. A point I saw reiterated was that\nHitler and the party covered up these accusations. If you are going to accuse\nofficial history of being a fabrication, you should at least get your facts\nright. The pretext for purging Roehm was that he was planning to use the SA in\na coup against Hitler. Nowhere is there mention of using allegations of\nhomosexuality as a pretext for the purge, nor as a justification afterwards (it\nis possible that the histories I\'ve read have not mentioned this, but I doubt\nit - would it be in Hitler\'s best interest to admit to the world that his\nformer right hand man was a homosexual?). \n\nAnyway, as I said before, it is always possible that I have missed references \nto the Nazis making use of charges of homosexuality against the SA after the \nnight of the long knives - but this does not prove that they were false. Even \nthe Nazis could tell the truth when it was to their advantage. In any case, \nthis does not deal with accusations of homosexuality in the SA during the \n1920\'s.\n\n>Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,\n>anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered\n>tainted evidence. \n\nAh, yes. I forgot this was being posted to alt.conspiracy. I can smell the\nparanoia from here. Since the Nazis never officially charged Roehm with \nhomosexuality (at least, not according to what I\'ve read), I\'d like to know \nwhat tainted "evidence" you are talking about. Since the accusations were made \nby persons outside of the Nazi party, long before it came to power, and those \naccusations were common knowledge to journalists and others in Germany in the \n1920\'s and 30\'s, just how would it be possible for the Nazis to go back in \ntime and plant "tainted" evidence? How exactly does one doctor newspapers \nwhich were circulated around the world, without the discrepancies being \nobvious? What actual incidences of Nazi doctoring evidence on this matter\ndo you know about? And what about the testimony of people who were involved in \nthese matters, some of whom were not Nazis? And what is the point of making a \nfalse accusation of homosexuality if you do not publicize it? Since the point \nhere seems to be to discredit established history, then the burden of proof \nfalls on the revisionist. The revisionists had better do their homework \nbefore making accusations. Otherwise they simply look like conspiracy nuts.\n\n>The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,\n>the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better\n>place when they departed, \n\nThis is just about the *only* thing we agree on. \n\nI suspect that the notion that there might have been bad people - Roehm and \nhis SA buddies - who were homosexuals must disturb some people. The feeling\nseems to be that if a nasty individual is accused of homosexuality, that this\nmust be an attempt to bash homosexuals. This fear - often justified - is what\nlies behind this distrust of official history, or so it seems to me. But this\nis not a good justification for trashing accepted accounts of this subject. If \nyou really think that historians are so incompetent, why don\'t you write them \nand ask where they got their sources on this subject, if you can\'t tell from \ntheir footnotes? I\'m a graduate student in history. Writing to professors and\ntracking down sources is old hat. But my time is limited and this is not my\nspecialty - and neither you nor anyone else have said anything that would\ncast one shred of doubt on existing evidence. I\'m not going to waste my time\ntrying to debunk someone\'s paranoia. Do the research yourself.\n\n>but concrete particulars are still no more than\n>more or less shrewd guesses. \n>-- Diccon Frankborn\n\nGiven that you already consider all evidence "tainted", what on earth would\nconstitute concrete particulars? And since when have concrete particulars been\nconsidered "shrewd guesses"?\n\nI suggest that those who do not trust popular historians (Irving et al) -\nhistorians writing for a popular audience do not, as a rule, provide copious \nfootnotes - should try instead reading academic historians, who usually \nprovide footnotes to all their sources in immmense detail. This is the place \nto start looking. Assuming that one really wants to know the truth.\n\nI\'ll bet the folks on alt.pagan are tired of this subject already. My\napologies - we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I forget which gods\nare responsible for keeping strings within appropriate newsgroup subject\nboundaries...\n \n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\nDavid Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)\n"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly\nof us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\n', "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nDistribution: world,public\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 19\n\nIn article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:\n> As I have stated on a parallel thread, I am not an anarchist, nor is\n> Islam anarchist. Therefore the UK should have control over itself. \n> However, this does not change the fact that it is possible for citizens\n> of the UK residing within the UK to be in violation of Islamic law.\n\nThis is an interesting notion -- and one I'm scared of. In my\ncase I'm a Finnish citizen, I live in USA, and I have to conform\nto the US laws. However, the Finnish government is not actively\nchecking out what I'm doing in this country, in other words checking\nout if I conform to the Finnish laws.\n\nHowever, Islamic law seems to be a 'curse' that is following you\neverywhere in the world. Shades of 1984, eh?\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n", 'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 23\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n|> \n|> I\'ll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base\n|> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly\n|> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),\n|> almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or\n|> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see\n|> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on\n|> a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it\n|> it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values\n|> such as this exist.\n\nMy own personal and highly subjective opinion is that freedom\nis a good thing.\n\nHowever, when I here people assert that the only "true" freedom\nis in following the words of this and that Messiah, I realise\nthat people don\'t even agree on the meaning of the word.\n\nWhat does it mean to say that word X represents an objective\nvalue when word X has no objective meaning?\n\njon.\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 31\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qm069$fm8@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n|> In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n|> #|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n|> #|> #\tYou have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define \n|> #|> #what "objective values" are.\n|> #|> \n|> #|> Really? You don\'t know what objective value is? If I offered the people\n|> #|> of the U.S., collectively,$1 for all of the land in America, would that \n|> #|> sound like a good deal?  \n|> #\n|> #You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of\n|> #us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price\n|> #exists?\n|> \n|> I said nothing about the price.  I asked if the deal was good.  It isn\'t.\n\nSo it was a complete non-sequitur, is that it?     How does coming\nup with a derisory deal tell us anything about the existence of\n"objective" values.\n\nYou\'re asking us to accept that the deal you offered would be turned\ndown, and we believe that, not because we appeal to objective values\nbut becasue we know, or think we know, something about people.\n\nAll the people we know exhibit *subjective* values that would lead\nthem to reject a deal of $1 for all of the land in America.\n\nGreat. Now, so what?\n\njon. \n', 'From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)\nSubject: Re: And Another THing:\nIn-Reply-To: mangoe@cs.umd.edu\'s message of 3 Apr 93 00:46:07 GMT\nOrganization: Software Engineering Institute\nLines: 39\n\n\n\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n\n>Keith Ryan writes:\n>>\n>>You will ignore any criticism of your logic, or any possible incongruenties\n>>in your stance? You will not answer any questions on the validity of any\n>>opinion and/or facts you state?\n\n>When I have to start saying "that\'s not what I said", and the response is\n>"did so!", there\'s no reason to continue. If someone is not going to argue\n>with MY version of MY position, then they cannot be argued with.\n\nBut of course YOUR version of YOUR position has been included in the\nCharley Challenges, so your claim above is a flat-out lie. Further,\nonly last week you claimed that you "might not" answer the Challenges\nbecause you were turned off by "included text". So which is it, do\nyou want your context included in my articles or not? Come to think\nof it, this contradiction has the makings of a new entry in the next\nChallenges post.\n\nBy the way, I\'ve kept every bloody thing that you\'ve written related\nto this thread, and will be only too pleased to re-post any of it to\nback my position. You seem to have forgotten that you leave an\nelectronic paper trail on the net.\n\n>>This is the usual theist approach. No matter how many times a certain\n>>argument has been disproven, shown to be non-applicable or non-sequitur;\n>>they keep cropping up- time after time.\n\n>Speaking of non-sequiturs, this has little to do with what I just said. And\n>have some sauce for the goose: some of the "disproof" is fallacies repeated\n>over and over (such as the "law of nature" argument someone posted recently).\n\nNow, now, let\'s not change the subject. Wouldn\'t it be best to finish\nup the thread in question before you begin new ones?\n\n--Dave Wood\n', " zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!lmh\nSubject: Re: Americans and Evolution\nFrom: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)\nDistribution: world,local\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology\nNNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu<, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...\n<In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes...\n<<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god) Belief that there is no god.\n<<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is\n<< not possible to determine if there is a god.\n\n<No. Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a\n<belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods.\n<That's a belief I'm inclined to reject. You have also defined atheism\n<here as a positive belief--that there is no god. A fairly large number\n<of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that\n<atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Michael Martin, in\n<_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism\n\n My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the \nfollow up line.\n\nlarry henling lmh@shakes.caltech.edu\n", ' cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bdunn\nSubject: Re: The wrong and the right.\nFrom: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\nLines: 25\n\nIn article <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> <E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:\n>Hi.I\'m a Turkish guy who had tried atheism,satenism and buddism at some instant\n>s of hislife.Finally I decided on Islambecause of many facts which I intend to\n> write here.From my point of view,you atheists are people who has dropped to a\n>deep,dark well and thinking the only reality is the dusty walls of the well.But\n> if you had looked a little bit upward you would see the blue skies.You\'dsee t\n>he truth but you close your eyes.Allah is the only GOD and Mohammed is his mess\n> ager.now,let\'s generate some entropy in means of theology and thermodynamics.W\n>hat\'s your point of view to the problem of the \'\'FIRST KISS\'\'?That is,the first\n> spark which was generated for the formation of the universe.Has it formed by i\n>tself?You are bothering yourselves with the Big Bang but where is the first spa\n>rk?Please think a bit.Think and return to the only reality of the universe:ISLA\n>M|\n\nUh oh. This looks a bit too much like Bobby\'s "Atheism Is False" stuff. Are\nwe really going to have to go through this again? Maybe the universe is\ncyclical! :) :(\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n--Brendan Dunn\n', 'From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)\nSubject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)\nOrganization: Decision Support Inc.\nLines: 51\nNNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com\n\nThis (frayed) thread has turned into a patented alt.atheism 5-on-1\nping-pong game, and I don\'t have any strong disagreement, so I\'ll try\nto stick to the one thing I don\'t quite follow about the argument:\n\nIt seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the Bible\nwas "enlightened for its times" (i.e. closer to what we would consider\nmorally good based on our standards and past experience) on the one\nhand [I hope this summarizes this argument adequately], and on the\nother hand:\n\nIn article <1993Apr03.001125.23294@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:\n}In article <1phpe1INN8g6@dsi.dsinc.com>, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:\n\n}|> }Disclaimer: I\'m speaking from the Jewish perspective,\n}|> }where "the Bible" means what many call the Old Testament,\n}|> }and where the interpretation is not necessarily the\n}|> }raw text, but instead the court cases, commentaries\n}|> }and traditions passed down through Jewish communities.\n}|> \n}|> This seems the crux to me: if you judge the Bible according to a long\n}|> line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day,\n}|> rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact, then of course\n}|> it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values.\n}\n}But if that\'s how the Bible is actually being used today,\n}shouldn\'t that be how we should judge it? If most people\n}use scissors to cut paper, shouldn\'t Consumer\'s Reports\n}test scissors for paper-cutting ability, even though\n}scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth?\n\nThat\'s possibly a good way to judge the use of the Bible in teaching\nJewish morality today, but it hardly seems fair to claim that this\nhighly-interpreted version is what was "enlightened for its times".\nTo (attempt to) extend the analogy, this is like saying that the\noriginal scissor-makers were unusually advanced at paper-cutting for\ntheir times, even though they only ever cut cloth, and had never even\nheard of paper.\n\nI\'m not arguing that the Bible is "disgusting", though some of the\nhistory depicted in it is, by modern standards. However, history is\nfull of similar abuses, and I don\'t think the Biblical accounts are\nworse than their contemporaries--or possibly ours. On the other hand,\nI don\'t know of any reason to think the history described in the Bible\nshows *less* abuse than their contemporaries, or ours. That complex\nand benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic\ninterpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don\'t\nthink it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it\nto attack condemnation of the original history.\n-- \nJim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC\nThese are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.\n', 'From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)\nSubject: Re: note to Bobby M.\nOrganization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre\nLines: 14\nDistribution: sfnet\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi\n\nIn <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n\n>Insults about the atheistic genocide was totally unintentional. Under\n>atheism, anything can happen, good or bad, including genocide.\n\nAnd you know why this is? Because you\'ve conveniently _defined_ a theist as\nsomeone who can do no wrong, and you\'ve _defined_ people who do wrong as\natheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,\nas such, has no value.\n-- \nSami Aario | "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode\na137490@cc.tut.fi | one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."\n-------------------\' "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"\nEros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space" DISCLAIMER: I don\'t agree with Eros.\n', "From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nOrganization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.\nLines: 29\n\n\nIn article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n|> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,\n|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n|> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had\n|> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world. The Israelites were a\n|> > direct witness to God's existence. To disobey God after KNOWing that God\n|> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.\n|> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to \n|> > God's chosen people. But Jesus has changed all of that. We are living in the\n|> > age of grace. Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death. There is\n|> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. And not just\n|> > for a few chosen people. Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile\n|> > alike.\n|> \n|> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.\n|> \n|> Cheers,\n|> Kent\n|> ---\n|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n\nA lot of people won't agree with me. That's their right and I respect that.\nHowever, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus\nChrist. There are Jews who have become Christians.\n\nThis brings up another question I still have to ponder: why is there so \nmuch anti-Semitism? Why do people hate Jews? I don't hate Jews. I consider\nthem to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.\n", 'Subject: Re: Request for Support\nFrom: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\nLines: 16\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.095148.5730@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:\n\n>2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it\n>something similar to the following:\n>\n> "Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."\n\n\tAgreed.\n\n--\n\n\n "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill. \n They do what god tells them to do. "\n\n S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) \n', 'From: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)\nSubject: Re: Objective Values \'v\' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)\nOrganization: Nottingham University\nLines: 38\n\nIn article <C5J718.Jzv@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) wrote:\n> In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n> \n> >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, \n> >as you would wish it.  \n> \n> You must be using \'values\' to mean something different from the way I\n> see it used normally.\n> \n> And you are certainly using \'Science\' like that if you equate it to\n> "the real world".\n> \n> Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe\n> and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning\n> those perceptions.\n\nScience is the process of modeling the real world based on commonly agreed\ninterpretations of our observations (perceptions).\n\n> It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see.\n> Values are ... well they are what I value.\n> They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience\n> rather than not, and so on.\n\nValues can also refer to meaning.  For example in computer science the\nvalue of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE.  Science is based on commonly agreed\nvalues (interpretation of observations), although science can result in a\nreinterpretation of these values.\n\n> Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are\n> applicable to everyone.\n\nThe values underlaying science are not objective since they have never been\nfully agreed, and the change with time.  The values of Newtonian physic are\ncertainly different to those of Quantum Mechanics.\n\nSteve Lang\nSLANG->SLING->SLINK->SLICK->SLACK->SHACK->SHANK->THANK->THINK->THICK\n',
"From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Allah Akbar and Praise the Lord.\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 15\n\nMaddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:\n: \n: And thank the Lord that Bill Connor has returned to set\n: us straight!  Now I know I can die happy when my Lexus\n: SE400 wipes out on that rain-slick curve in 1997.  The\n: rest of you had best straighten up, because your time \n: is even more limited.  Most of you are going in the Flu\n: of 1994.\n\nMaddi,\n\nYou know you're glad to have me visit ...\nBut I won't stay long this time, just shopping around.\n\nBill\n",
'From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat)\nSubject: Victims of various \'Good Fight\'s\nOrganization: Cured, discharged\nLines: 30\n\nIn article <9454@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala) writes:\n\n> LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION \n> 1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000\n> 2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000\n> 3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000\n> 4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000\n> 5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??)\n> 6. Crusades: ??\n\n7. Massacre of Jews in WWII: 6.3 million\n8. Massacre of other \'inferior races\' in WWII: 10 million\n9. Communist purges: 20-30 million? [Socialism is more or less a religion]\n10. Catholics V Protestants : quite a few I\'d imagine\n11. Recent goings on in Bombay/Iodia (sp?) area: ??\n12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million\n\n> -- Naren\n\nThe Desert Brat\n-- \nJohn J McVey, Elc&Eltnc Eng, Whyalla, Uni S Australia,    ________\n9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au      T.S.A.K.C.            \\/Darwin o\\\nFor replies, mail to whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au      /\\________/\nDisclaimer: Unisa hates my opinions.                       bb  bb\n+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+\n|"It doesn\'t make a rainbow any less beautiful that we | "God\'s name is smack  |\n|understand the refractive mechanisms that chance to   | for some."            |\n|produce it." - Jim Perry, perry@dsinc.com             |    - Alice In Chains  |\n+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+\n',
'From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)\nSubject: Re: [lds] Gordon\'s Objections\nReply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)\nOrganization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science\nLines: 38\n\nIn article <C5rp8K.Kw2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:\n>Gordon Banks quoted and added...\n>\n>gb> In article <C53L1s.D61@acsu.buffalo.edu>\n>gb>  psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:\n>gb>\n>gb> >The Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That Jesus is God\n>gb> >the Father\'s first born spirit child. That Jesus was begotten on earth\n>gb> >through natural means, not by the Holy Ghost. That He sweat His blood\n>gb> >for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. That His blood cannot\n>gb> >cleanse from all sin. That He is now among many millions of other\n>gb> >gods. That Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim (in the OT\n>gb> >Jehovah and Elohim are the same). That He needed to be saved.\n>gb>\n\n\nIt is true that Mormons believe that all spirits (including Jesus,\nLucifer, Robert Weiss) are in the same family.  It does not mean\nthat Jesus was created, but rather that Lucifer and Robert Weiss\nwere not.  I agree that this is a "heresy".  So what?  \nThe sweating of blood in Gethsemene is\nnot a basic Mormon doctrine.  Jesus did not perform the atonement\nin Getheseme alone, as some anti-Mormons are trying to teach.  \nAs far as the "unpardonable sin" whatever that is, it is Biblical,\nand not specifically Mormon.  It is also called the sin against\nthe Holy Ghost.  Most Bible scholars (other than conservative\nones) do not believe Jehovah and Elohim were always the same.\nI\'m sure you\'ve heard of the J and the E texts?  I don\'t\nknow what you mean by "That He needed to be saved".  Jesus?\nJehovah?  Elohim?  In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was sinless,\nand thus did not "need to be saved".  \n\n\n-- \n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\nGordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and\ngeb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." \n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n',
"From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: thoughts on christians\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]\nLines: 17\n\nEd McCreary (edm@twisto.compaq.com) wrote:\n: >>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:\n\n: RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:\n: >EVER HEAR OF\n: >BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what\n: >is...\n: >\n: RB>   \n: RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes\n: RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the\n: RB>   priest really wears under that chasible.\n\nDoes this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's\nnot intended as wit ...\n\nBill\n",
'From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)\nSubject: Re: New Member\nNntp-Posting-Host: crchh410\nOrganization: BNR, Inc.\nLines: 47\n\nIn article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:\n|>   Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going\n|> to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of\n|> the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist,\n|> but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure\n|> why people believe the way they do - I don\'t much care if they have a \n|> different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong.\n|> I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers \n|> dont seem to have the capability to do.\n\nWelcome aboard!\n\n|> \n|>   I notice alot of posts from Bobby. Why does anybody ever respond to \n|> his posts ? He always falls back on the same argument:\n\n(I think you just answered your own question, there)\n\n|> \n|> "If the religion is followed it will cause no bad"\n|> \n|>   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been\n|> done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed\n|> the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn\'t\n|> followed so it can\'t be the reason for the event. There really is no way\n|> to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his \n|> answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time\n|> with his little argument. I don\'t think there will be any postings from\n|> me in direct response to one of his.\n\nMost responses were against his postings that spouted the fact that\nall atheists are fools/evil for not seeing how peachy Islam is.\nI would leave the pro/con arguments of Islam to Fred Rice, who is more\nlevel headed and seems to know more on the subject, anyway.\n\n|> \n|>   Happy to be aboard !\n\nHow did you know I was going to welcome you abord?!?\n\n|> \n|> Dave Fuller\n|> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com\n|> \n|> \n\nBrian /-|-\\\n',
"From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: University of Illinois at Urbana\nLines: 13\n\n\nON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the\nGolden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is\nthe Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  That's Ruby Rose and Gold Cross, in rough\ntranslation.  The G.'.D.'. is a Rosicrucian order, as are all derivative\ngroups.  Of course, real Rosicrucians never admit to being Rosicrucian.\n\nEnjoy the journey!\n                      --Br'anArthur\n                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)\n\n******************************************************************************\nClosed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark\n",
"From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 23\n\nIn article <1993Apr10.124753.25195@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:\n\n>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:\n\n>>Well, it seemed slightly incongruous to find the Union Jack flying\n>>at City Hall in Belfast. \n\n>May I ask why?  It's there not because the British want it there (NI\n>is just one big expensive problem), it's there because that is\n>what the majority of the population of NI want.  Is there some\n>problem with that?\n\nThe majority of those who can open their mouths in public perhaps.\nThere seems quite alot of incentive for the British to have control\nof NI, like using the North Channel and Irish Sea as a waste dump (I was\nappalled at the dumping I saw in the harbor in Belfast). It is my\nunderstanding that quite alot of radioactivity enters the water --\nit'd be quite a problem if NI got its independence from Britain and\nthen stopped accepting the waste. Are you suggesting that British\nindustry isn't making profit off the situation as well?\n\n\nGregg\n",
'From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 8\n\t<1qh49m$mg9@kyle.eitech.com>\nNNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu\nIn-Reply-To: <1qh49m$mg9@kyle.eitech.com>\n\nAfter tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?\n=============================================================\n--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)\n--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn\'t be a human\nbeing, you\'d be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")\n--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor\nbecome the notes of the student without passing through the minds of\neither.\n',
'From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: University of Illinois at Urbana\nLines: 39\n\nIn <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:\n\n>In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike \nCobb) writes:\n>>What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning? \n>>COuldn\'t that be wrong?\n>>\n\n>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the\n>  existence of any god.  Don\'t fall into the "atheists don\'t believe\n>  because of their pride" mistake.\n\nHow do you know it\'s based on ignorance, couldn\'t that be wrong? Why would it\nbe wrong \nto fall into the trap that you mentioned? \n\nAlso, if I may, what the heck where we talking about and why didn\'t I keep \nsome comments on there to see what the line of thoughts were?\n\nMAC\n \n\n\n>/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\n>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\n>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\n>and sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n--\n****************************************************************\n                                                    Michael A. Cobb\n "...and I won\'t raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois\n    class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana\n          -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu\n                                              \nWith new taxes and spending cuts we\'ll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.\n',
"From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)\nSubject: Re: Albert Sabin\nReply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)\nOrganization: Ministry of Silly Walks\nLines: 30\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com\n(Bill Rawlins) writes:\n>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring\n>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if\n>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and\n>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,\n>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts\n>        are very much in harmony.  \n\n  Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is\nprobably the weakest evidence.\n\n  What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out\nby the Jewish councils in the second century.  There are enormous quantities of\ndetailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used\ntoday.  Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the\nexistance of Jesus, only of his activities.\n\n  I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the\ngospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a\nsource).\n\n |  __L__\n-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub\n |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu\n |/ ---' Iowa State University\n/|   ___  Math Department\n |  |___| 400 Carver Hall\n |  |___| Ames, IA  50011\n J  _____\n",
"From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)\nSubject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?\nOrganization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <sandvik-180493131125@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\n>wrote:\n>> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> \n>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>> >Ignorance is not bliss!\n> \n>> Ignorance is STRENGTH!\n>> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!\n>\n>Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece\n>of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).\n>\n>\n>Cheers,\n>Kent\n>---\n>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n\nHe was quoting Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.\n",
'Organization: Penn State University\nFrom: <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu>\nSubject: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!\nLines: 2\n\nYOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE\nPREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 24\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1ql7utINN5sg@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform\n|> >the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.\n|> \n|> If you were omniscient, you\'d know who exactly did what, and with what\n|> purpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be\n|> able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance\n|> with the general goal.\n\nBut now you are contradicting yourself in a pretty massive way,\nand I don\'t think you\'ve even noticed.\n\nIn another part of this thread, you\'ve been telling us that the\n"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.\n\nBut suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long\nterm survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some \nother species, either terrestrial or alien.\n\nDoes that make it moral to do so?\n\njon. \n',
'From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Netcom. San Jose, California\nLines: 25\n\nfrank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes ...\n>Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so \n>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism? \n\nTo the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the\ntruth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to\ncontrol events.\n\nAssuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two\nrelativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute\ntruth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that\nproduces the desired results.\n\nAssuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing \nobjectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there\nis no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,\nyou must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees\nwith you is amoral.\n\nGiven a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,\nI\'d say that compromise seems to be "better".\n\n-- \nRay Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth\nray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche\n',
'From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)\nSubject: Re: Question for those with popular morality\nReply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England\nLines: 50\nNntp-Posting-Host: bangkok\n\nPaul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) writes:\n\n>I was not directly going to come up with a moral argument for the  existence\n>of God.  Rather, I was trying to show the absurdity of atheistic materialist\n>relatavists trying to embrace some common moral system as though it were\n>absolute.  Man knows in his heart that there is right and wrong.  We have\n>all inherited this knowledge.  \n\nNo matter how "absurd" it is to suggest that a common moral system created by\nmankind is absolute, it is not contrary to reason to suggest that a common\nmoral system created by mankind is sensible. In fact, for the Bible to be of\nany use to mankind as a moral code, it must be interpreted by mankind and a\nworkable moral system created for everyday use.\n\nThe Jewish Talmud is the result of centuries of Biblical scholars analysing\nevery word of the Torah to understand the morality behind it. The Children of\nIsrael were given a very strict set of Moral, Civil, Judicial and Ceremonial\nLaws to follow and yet this was clearly not enough to cover every instance\nof moral dilemma in their Society. For a Christian, the situation is no better.\n\nIt seems to me that the only code of morality that we have from the Judeo-\nChristian God is that which is contained in the Bible (which we can see from\nthe diverse opinions in the Christian newsgroups is not clear). There may well\nbe an absolute morality defined by the Judeo-Christian God for mankind to\nfollow but it seems that we only have a subset simply because the concept was\nwritten down by man.\n\nThis leads to the problem of defining morality for our society. If we take the\ndivine Morality then we have a code of practice which may be interpreted in many\ndifferent ways (as an example, consider the immolation of heretics in the\nfifteenth century and the interpretation of the Bible which allows a man to do\nthat to another man under the precept to administer Justice). If we take an\nagnostic Morality then we have a code of practice that can be modified to suit\nsociety (with all the danger that this implies). Alternatively, we could take\nthe basis of the Judeo-Christian morality and interpret/extend this to create\nand justify a code of morality which suits the society we live in and enables\nthe people to live Righteously (as many Christian and Non-Christian philosophers\nhave done).\n\nWhatever the driving force behind the definition of morality for our society, I\nthink the important aspect is the result.\n\nDavid.\n\n---\nOn religion:\n\n"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,\nAs they swam its clearness through.\n\n',
'Organization: Penn State University\nFrom: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nDistribution: world\n <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1q0fngINNahu@gap.caltech.edu>\n <C5C9FA.6zH@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1qabe7INNaff@gap.caltech.edu>\n <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>\nLines: 11\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>, SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu\n(SCOTT D. SAUYET) says:\n\n>Are these his final words? (And how many here would find that\n>appropriate?) Or is it just that finals got in the way?\n\n>Keep your fingers crossed!\n\nWhy should I keep my fingers crossed? I doubt it would do anything. :)\n\nMartin Schulte\n', 'From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)\nSubject: Re: Info about New Age!\nReply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)\nOrganization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA\nLines: 12\n\nIn article <1qvnu9$a8a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> hawk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:\n>Greetings!  Could anybody here give me any information about New Age religion?\n>About the history, the teachings, ...???  Or may be suggestions what books I \n>should read in order to get those info?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.\n\n\nContact:   WATCHMAN FELLOWSHIP\n           P.O. Box 171194\n           Holladay, UT 84117-1194\n\nAsk for their book:  The New Age and Space Age Heresies\n                     The New Age In Our Schools\n',
"From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 14\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the\n>>>default?  ...  Where's the cutoff point? \n>>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few\n>>years, and surely after 40 years.\n>Why does the notion of default not take into account changes\n>in population makeup?     \n\nSpecifically, which changes are you talking about?  Are you arguing\nthat the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the\npopulation now than 40 years ago?\n\nkeith\n",
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 49\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\nkcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:\n\n>>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that\n>>a certain species has developed in order to survive.\n>Wait.  Are we talking about ethics or morals here?\n\nIs the distinction important?\n\n>>We see this countless\n>>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for\n>>our own system as well.\n>Huh?\n\nWell, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.\n\n>>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need\n>>to live in groups,\n>Here\'s your problem.  "we *SEEM* to need".  What\'s wrong with the highlighted\n>word?\n\nI don\'t know.  What is wrong?  Is it possible for humans to survive for\na long time in the wild?  Yes, it\'s possible, but it is difficult.  Humans\nare a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.\n\n>>and in order for a group to function effectively, it\n>>needs some sort of ethical code.\n>This statement is not correct.\n\nIsn\'t it?  Why don\'t you think so?\n\n>>And, by pointing out that a species\' conduct serves to propogate itself,\n>>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that\n>>such are examples of moral systems with a goal.  Propogation of the species\n>>is a goal of a natural system of morality.\n>So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral?  After all,\n>in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate\n>as many women as possible.\n\nNo.  As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality)\nisn\'t really destructive to the system.  It is a worst neutral.\n\n>For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates.  When\n>he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who\n>mates.  These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying\n>to shoot itself in the figurative foot.\n\nAgain, the mating practices are something to be reexamined...\n\nkeith\n',
"From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nReply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)\nOrganization: Ministry of Silly Walks\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <C5L184.Jo9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)\nwrites:\n>In <1qlapk$d7v@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) \n>writes:\n>>In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike \n>Cobb) writes:\n>>>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there\n>>>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created\n>>>the heavens and the earth.\n>\n>> Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking!\n>\n>Huh? Imaginative thinking? What did that have to do with what I said? Would it\n>have been better if I said the world has existed forever and never was created\n>and has an endless supply of energy and there was spontaneous generation of \n>life from non-life? WOuld that make me all-wise, and knowing, and\nimaginative?\n\n No, but at least it would be a theory.\n\n | __L__\n-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub\n | | o | kv07@iastate.edu\n |/ ---' Iowa State University\n/| ___ Math Department\n | |___| 400 Carver Hall\n | |___| Ames, IA 50011\n J _____\n", 'From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)\nSubject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics\nLines: 29\n\n\nRobert Knowles writes:\n\n>>\n>>My my, there _are_ a few atheists with time on their hands. :)\n>>\n>>OK, first I apologize. I didn\'t bother reading the FAQ first and so fired an\n>>imprecise flame. That was inexcusable.\n>>\n\n>How about the nickname Bake "Flamethrower" Timmons?\n\nSure, but Robert "Koresh-Fetesh" (sic) Knowles seems good, too. :) \n>\n>You weren\'t at the Koresh compound around noon today by any chance, were you?\n>\n>Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins.\n>\n>And pass that beef jerky. Umm Umm.\n\nThough I wasn\'t there, at least I can rely on you now to keep me posted on what\nwhat he\'s doing.\n\nHave you any other fetishes besides those for beef jerky and David Koresh? \n--\nBake Timmons, III\n\n-- "...there\'s nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life\nthan some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)\n', 'From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)\nSubject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?\nOrganization: Idaho River Country, The Salmon, Payette, Clearwater, Boise, Selway, Priest\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]\nLines: 35\n\nBrian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:\n: \n: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that\n: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact\n: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?\n: \n: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very\n: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing\n: on my own personal day-to-day life?\n\nWould you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the\nevents surrounding Jesus\' life?\n\n\n 2Pe 1 16 ¶ We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you\n about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were \n eyewitnesses of his majesty.\n\n 2Pe 1 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the\n voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom \n I love; with him I am well pleased."¹\n\n 2Pe 1 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we\n were with him on the sacred mountain.\n\n 2Pe 1 19 ¶ And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and\n you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark\n place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.\n\nThis is a documented testimony. Perhaps further research on your part is\nwarranted before making more statements. There is considerably more to study\nin Peters\' two books of testimony regarding the Messiah. It is well worth \nyour time, Mr. Brian.\n\nJim Burrill\n', 'From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)\nSubject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity\nReply-To: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)\nOrganization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada\nLines: 44\n\nwerdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:\n>mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:\n>\n>>Question 2: This attitude god character seems awfully egotistical\n>>and proud. But Christianity tells people to be humble. What\'s the deal?\n>\n>Well, God pretty much has a right to be "egotistical and proud." I\n>mean, he created _you_, doesn\'t he have the right to be proud of such\n>a job?\n>\n>Of course, people don\'t have much of a right to be proud. What have\n>they accomplished that can match God\'s accomplishments, anyways? How\n>do their abilities compare with those of God\'s. We\'re an "imbecile\n>worm of the earth," to quote Pascal.\n\nGrumblegrumble... \n\n>If you were God, and you created a universe, wouldn\'t you be just a\n>little irked if some self-organizing cell globules on a tiny planet\n>started thinking they were as great and awesome as you?\n\nunfortunately the logic falls apart quick: all-perfect > insulted or\nthreatened by the actions of a lesser creature > actually by offspring >\n???????????????????\n\nHow/why shuold any all-powerful all-perfect feel either proud or offended?\nAnything capable of being aware of the relationship of every aspect of every \nparticle in the universe during every moment of time simultaneously should\nbe able to understand the cause of every action of every \'cell globule\' on\neach tniy planet...\n\n>Well, actually, now that I think of it, it seems kinda odd that God\n>would care at all about the Earth. OK, so it was a bad example. But\n>the amazing fact is that He does care, apparently, and that he was\n>willing to make some grand sacrifices to ensure our happiness.\n\n"All-powerful, Owner Of Everything in the Universe Makes Great Sacrifices"\nmakes a great headline but it doesn\'t make any sense. What did he\nsacrifice? Where did it go that he couldn\'t get it back? If he gave\nsomething up, who\'d he give it up to?\n\n-chris\n\n[you guys have fun, I\'m agoin\' to Key West!!]\n', "From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nNntp-Posting-Host: c.ch.apollo.hp.com\nOrganization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA\nLines: 26\n\nIn article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:\n>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:\n>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,\n>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,\n>> \n>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his\n>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.\n>\n>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?\n> \n>> Koresh was a nut, okay?  \n>\n>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.\n\n  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after\n  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he\n  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.\n\n  None of which excuses the gross incompetence and disregard for the\n  safety of the children displayed by the feds.   As someone else\n  pointed out, if it had been Chelsea Clinton in there you would \n  probably have seen more restraint.\n\n\n---peter\n",
'From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize)\nSubject: Re: sci.skeptic.religion (Was: Why ALT.atheism?)\nOrganization: Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX\nLines: 33\nNNTP-Posting-Host: thug.sps.mot.com\n\nIn article <93103.071613J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:\n>\n>Standard groups (sci, soc, talk) must conform to stricter rules when being\n>established and must show a certain volume of postings or else they will\n>cease to exist.  These groups also reach more sites on USENET than alt\n>groups.  I already posted my opinion to mathew\'s suggestion, which was that\n>alt.atheism is on the verge of having too many garbage postings from\n>fundies, and "elevating" its status to a standard group (and consequently,\n>the volume of such postings) could make it unreadable.\n\nI tend to agree.  I came here when it first started and watched it grow\nfrom the roots on talk.religion.misc.  It seemed to take a while for enough\natheists to come forward to get past the "Let\'s trash Xians" and such.\nNow there\'s a stable core, and frankly there\'s a feeling that this is\n_our_ group.\n\nIf we go mainstream, we\'re going to be in a lot more places.  And every\nfucking fundy loonie freshman will be dumping on us to find Jeesus! and\nwarn us that we\'re all going to Hell.\n\nWant to see what we\'ll get?  Go real alt.fan.brother-jed and imagine that\nthose imbecilic tirades will be here.  All the time.  Every other post.\n\nI\'m being selfish.  I find I really learn a lot here and the S/N isn\'t too\nbad.  The Browns and the Boobys are a distraction, but they are few enough\nthat they even bring in some of the leavening needed to offset them.  But\nI greatly fear that mainstreaming would basically put us at the swamping\nlevel of the Conners of the world.\n\nRegards,\nDew\n-- \nDewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637\n',
'From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: University of Southern Queensland\nLines: 21\n\njudi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:\n\n>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:\n\n>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"\n\n>and\n\n>"Values are subjective?"\n\n>I don\'t see any.\n\nThe first means that some aspect of reality contains objective values.\nThe second means that values are a reference to some preference of the\nindividual.  In the first case, it is possible that some future discovery\nmight invalidate certain views re what objective values are.\n\n--\n\nRon House.                 USQ\n(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.\n',
'From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)\nSubject: Re: Who\'s next?  Mormons and Jews?\nOrganization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 21\n\n\nIn article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:\n|> \n|> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to \n|> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."\n|> :\n\nRemember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the\nWord of God, the Bible.\n\nGod be with you,\n\nMalcolm Lee  :)\n\n\n|> RJL\n|> -- \n|> Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:\n|> EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,\n|> Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all\n|> FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.\n',
' cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!zazen\nSubject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!\nFrom: zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)\nOrganization: Brownian Motion Inc.\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]\nLines: 34\n\nThe One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:\n: In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:\n: [first post I\'ve seen from the ol\' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)]\n: >     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt\n: >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me\n: >what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an\n: >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.\n: > I accept nothing on blind faith.\n\n: Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?\n\nThere is also the question of what is meant by "atheist".  A familiar\nexample of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.\n\nThe two statements following ARE consistent:\n\n(1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks\n(2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks\n\nThe two statements following are NOT consistent:\n\n(3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks\n(4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks\n\nStatements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about\nthe nature of reality.  Statements (3) and (4) require belief.  Many\natheists (myself included) take the following position:\n\n(5) I do not believe that there is a god.\n(6) I do not believe that there is not a god.\n\nThat is , I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence\nfor god existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not\nsuffer from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don\'t worry, be happy".\n',
'From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: Re: It\'s all Mary\'s fault!\nOrganization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 28\n\t<C5KEqu.4xo@portal.hq.videocart.com>\nNNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu\nIn-Reply-To: <C5KEqu.4xo@portal.hq.videocart.com>\n\ndfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:\n>   Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.\n> \n>   You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.\n> He couldn\'t let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol\' Mary prego. That\n> wouldn\'t do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what \n> happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and\n> THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise\n> been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I\n> have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should\n> receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.\n\nLucky for them that the baby didn\'t have any obvious deformities!  I could\njust see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and\nJoseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns\nout to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn!  They\'d have a lot of\nexplaining to do.... :-)\n\n> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller\n> How is that one \'o keeper of the nicknames ?\n\nNanci\n.........................................................................\nIf you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me\nemail (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):\nLife does not cease to be funny when people die, any more than it ceases to\nbe serious when people laugh.\n\n',
'From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nX-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University\n\tof Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither\n\tcontrol over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.\nOrganization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:\n>In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire\n>>on their house, killing most of the people inside.\n>\n>We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been\n>the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government\'s word for it, after all, and\n>people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly\n>disinterested observers.\n>--\n\tNor, to point out the obvious, are the deluded, siege-mentality\nfollowers of a religious nut-case who thought he was Jesus Christ or possibly\nThe Big Guy.\n\tPersonally, much as I regard the BATF and FBI as ConDupes, I\'ll take\ntheir word over a bunch of silly pinks who were stoopid enough to lock\nthemselves up with a goofball like "David Koresh" in a makeshift arsenal.\n\t************************************************************\n\t*  \tThe_Doge of South St. Louis\t\t\t   *\n\t*\t\tDobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)\t   *\n\t*\t"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm\t   *\n\t*\t\t88.1 FM\t\tSt. Louis Community Radio  *\n\t*  "You\'ll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *\n\t*\t\t\t-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"\t\t   *\n\t************************************************************\n',
"From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)\nSubject: Re: SUNDAY! THE DAY OF OUR LORD!\nOrganization: Oregon Health Sciences University\nLines: 14\nNntp-Posting-Host: facman\n\npharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:\n\t>dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:\n>>Exactly.  Sunday worship is in honor or the *SUN*, not the *SON* of God.\n>\n>Same thing, isn't it? It's pronounced the same? What other heavenly\n>beings are resurrected? The moon? That would by lunacy, at least to a\n>sunday worshiper.\n\nI have heard that the sabbath was originally determined by the phases of\nthe moon, and had elements of moon worship.  Early stuff, Egyptian in nature.\n\n-- \n-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273\nOregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232\n",
'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic\nKeywords: ... and blessed are aluminium siding salesman ...\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\n\t<1qkna8$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> \n\t<930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>\nLines: 19\n\nIn article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> \nmathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:\n>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn\'t it?\n>No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.\n\nDefinitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not\none can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!\n\nBut close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the\nEvangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act \ntours of the eastern Mediterranean.\n\nJesus on the other hand was duped, a pawn of the Con, fell pray to the\nHolywood Paradox (ain\'t nothing but a sign in the hills!). Like many\nAfro-Asians, Jesus found the earth all too pink! And to think that after\nhis death, the Con changed him into a tall blond Holywood sun god! And I \ndo mean that in the kindest way possums! Now Jesus does gigs with Hendrix, \nJoplin, Morrison, Lennon, Marley, Tosh, etc. Mostly ska beat jah-know!\n', "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 12\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\ndace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:\n\n>Keith Allan Schneider (keith@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:\n\n>Some soldiers are dependent on religion, for a number of purposes.\n>And some are no doubt dependent on cocaine, yet I don't see the military paying\n>for coca fields.\n\nWhile religion certainly has some benefits in a combat situation, what are\nthe benefits of cocaine?\n\nkeith\n", "From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nNntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au\nOrganization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia\nLines: 31\n\nkeith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n\n>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n\n>>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely\n>>>instead. The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just\n>>>implanted some sort of electronic device.\n>>Why wait until they commit the crime? Why not implant such devices in\n>>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?\n\n>Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. You are proposing to punish people\n>*before* they commit a crime? What justification do you have for this?\n\nNo, Mathew is proposing a public defence mechanism, not treating the\nelectronic device as an impropriety on the wearer. What he is saying is that\nthe next step beyond what you propose is the permanent bugging of potential\ncriminals. This may not, on the surface, sound like a bad thing, but who\ndefines what a potential criminal is? If the government of the day decides\nthat being a member of an opposition party makes you a potential criminal\nthen openly defying the government becomes a lethal practice, this is not\nconducive to a free society.\n\nMathew is saying that implanting electronic surveillance devices upon people\nis an impropriety upon that person, regardless of what type of crime or\nwhat chance of recidivism there is. Basically you see the criminal justice\nsystem as a punishment for the offender and possibly, therefore, a deterrant\nto future offenders. Mathew sees it, most probably, as a means of\nrehabilitation for the offender. So he was being cynical at you, okay?\n\nJeff.\n\n", 'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 8\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nmathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n\n>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?\n\nNot so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you\nblame the tiger?\n\nkeith\n', 'From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 46\n\nIn article <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n\n>|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which\n>|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim\n>|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere.\n\n>|> Grow up, childish propagandist.\n\n>Gregg, I\'m really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice\n>things aren\'t quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim\n>them to be upsets you..\n\nYou have done no such thing.\n\n\n>BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank -\n>what will someone bet me they weren\'t "real" Islamic owners and\n>operators?\n\nAn Islamic bank is a bank which operates according to the rules\nof Islam in regard to banking. This is done explicitly by the\nbank. This was not the case with BCCI.\n\n>And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into\n>BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down\n>the street?   \n\nThis is crap. BCCI was motivated by the same motives as other\ninternational banks, with perhaps an emphasis on dealing with\noutlaws and the intelligence services of various governments.\n\n>So please don\'t try to con us into thinking that it will all \n>work out right next time.\n\nBack to childish propaganda again. You really ought to get a life\nrather than wasting bandwith on such empty typing. There are thousands\nof Islamic banks operating throughout the world which no-one ever hears\nabout. If you want to talk about corrupted banks we can talk about\nall the people who\'ve been robbed by American banks. \n\n\nGregg\n\n\n\n',
'From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nNntp-Posting-Host: elvis.wri.com\nOrganization: Wolfram Research, Inc.\nLines: 27\n\nIn <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:\n\n>There\'s no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.\n\nSpeaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: \nBullshit.\n\n>There\'s no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.\n\nSpeaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: \nBullshit.\n\n>> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term \n>> "objective", if anything.\n\n>I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive\n>towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn\'t\n>actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not\n>be too far wrong.\n\nHow could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal \nhad no objective existence?\n--\nMark Pundurs\n\nany resemblance between my opinions and those \nof Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental\n',
'From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\nOrganization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things\nLines: 28\n\n1.  Did you read the FAQs?\n\n2.  If NO, Read the FAQs.\n\n3.  IF YES, you wouldn\'t have posted such drivel.  The "Lord, Liar\n    or Lunatic" argument is a false trilemma.  Even if you disprove\n    Liar and Lunatic (which you haven\'t), you have not eliminated\n    the other possibilities, such as Mistaken, Misdirected, or\n    Misunderstood.  You have arbitrarily set up three and only\n    three possibilities without considering others.\n\n4.  Read a good book on rhetoric and critical thinking.  If\n    you think the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" discussion is an\n    example of a good argument, you are in need of learning.\n\n5.  Read the FAQs again, especially "Constructing a Logical\n    Argument."\n\nIgnore these instructions at your peril.  Disobeying them\nleaves you open for righteous flaming.\n\n\n-- \nMaddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com\nCentigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553\n\nKids, please don\'t try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.\n\n',
'From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)\nSubject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics\nOrganization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things\nLines: 40\n\ntimmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >\n\n>OK, you have disproved one thing, but you failed to "nail" me.\n>\n>See, nowhere in my post did I claim that something _must_ be believed in.  Here\n>are the three possibilities:\n>\n>\t1) God exists. \n>\t2) God does not exist.\n>\t3) I don\'t know.\n>\n>My attack was on strong atheism, (2).  Since I am (3), I guess by what you said\n>below that makes me a weak atheist.\n  [snip]\n>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more honest\n>and include my sentence afterwards that \n\nHonest, it just ended like that, I swear!  \n\nHmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and\nrude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls\npeople names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr\n\n"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"\n\nQ.E.D.\n\nWhirr click whirr...Frank O\'Dwyer might also be contained\nin that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr\n\n"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O\'Dwyer =\n\nthe mind reels.  Maybe they\'re all Bobby Mozumder.\n\n-- \nMaddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com\nCentigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553\n\nKids, please don\'t try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.\n\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 31\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n|> In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which\n|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim\n|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere.\n|> \n|> >jon.\n|> \n|> Grow up, childish propagandist.\n\nGregg, I\'m really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice\nthings aren\'t quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim\nthem to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is \nopen to question.\n\nBBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank -\nwhat will someone bet me they weren\'t "real" Islamic owners and\noperators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running\nand quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often\nquite naive depositors.\n\nAnd why did these naive depositors put their life savings into\nBCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down\nthe street? Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned \nand operated bank couldn\'t possibly cheat them? \n\nSo please don\'t try to con us into thinking that it will all \nwork out right next time.\n\njon.\n', "From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 \nNntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu\nOrganization: The University of Texas at Arlington\nLines: 29\n\nIn article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, \nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...\n\n>In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,\n>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n>> These laws written for the Israelites...\n\n>> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied\n>> only to God's chosen people. But Jesus has changed all of that. We\n>> are living in the age of grace. Sin is no longer immediately punishable\n>> by death. There is repentance and there is salvation through our\n>> Lord Jesus Christ. And not just for a few chosen people. Salvation\n>> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. \n>\n>Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.\n\nWhich Jews KS? \n\n(ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...) \n\nDo you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?\n\n{And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less \nto avoid clutter?}\n\n |\n-- J --\n |\n | stephen\n", 'From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource\nLines: 24\nNNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu\n\nIn article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:\n>>Dear Brother Bill,\n>>\n>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn\'t just \n>>wait. Was the prospect of God\'s Message just too much to take?\n>\n> So do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity\n>of the FBI, or what? And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush,\n>directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their\n>administration? Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver\'s wife,\n>infant, son were killed? It happened while he was president.\n\n... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave\nCIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."\n\nThus far, Slick Willie is a piker.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tspl\n\n-- \nSteve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu\nSan Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608\n"My other car is a car, too."\n - Bumper strip seen on I-805\n', 'From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)\nSubject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)\nOrganization: Colorado Springs IT Center\nLines: 51\nNNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com\n\nrich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:\n> \n> The results of the passing amendment in\n> Colorado has created an organization who\'s posters are appearing all over\n> Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,\n> but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto\n> is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.\n\nI live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group. Obviously claims \nthat their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone... \n\n> This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are\n> embracing.\n\nHardly. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from \n"Working for a fag-free America". Saying that I wouldn\'t want \na homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse \n"Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash". \n\n> We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression\n> towards those we feel don\'t \'measure up\',\n\nAnd now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don\'t teach \nour kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable \nalternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us. No, thanks. \n\n> The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"\n> people. \n\nAbsolutely. And the message is always, "go and sin no more". Not, \nGo and do whatever "feels good". \n\nOne question, at the start of your post, you wrote:\n\n> I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free\n> form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian\n> community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists\n> against the oppression of African-Americans. Many were even killed and\n> treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such. I guess I\'ve\n> decided the challenge is worth it.\n\nThis sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd. You\'re \npresenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking\nhis neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support \nof gays in the church. But I was under the impression that you\nyourself are gay. That\'s all well and fine, but presenting yourself \nas sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit \nuntruthful under the circumstances.... \n\nWalter\n\n', 'From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)\nSubject: Re: Studies on Book of Mormon\nLines: 31\nOrganization: Walla Walla College\nLines: 31\n\nIn article <735023059snx@enkidu.mic.cl> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) writes:\n>From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)\n>Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon\n>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 14:15:33 CST\n>Hi!\n>\n>I don\'t know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent\n>studies about the Book of Mormon.\n>\n>I don\'t buy the \'official\' story about the gold original taken to heaven,\n>but haven\'t read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning\n>Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study\n>in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.\n>\n>For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?\n>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later\n>discovered by archeologist?\n>\n>Yours in Collen\n>\n>Andres Grino Brandt Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21\n>agrino@enkidu.mic.cl Chile\n>\n>No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta\nI don\'t think the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from Biblical \nHebrew. I\'ve read that "prophet Joseph Smith" traslated the gold tablets \nfrom some sort of Egyptian-ish language. \nFormer Mormons, PLEASE post.\n\nTammy "no trim" Healy\n\n', 'From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com\nSubject: Re: Origins of the bible.\nLines: 56\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.141112.15018@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:\n> Hi,\n> \n> I have been having an argument about the origins of the bible lately with\n> a theist acquaintance. He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered\n> at a certain point in time which were syllable-perfect. This therefore\n> meant that there must have been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted\n> by my acquaintace was approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.\n\nHi Adda,\n\nMost Bible scholars agree that there was one copy of each book at a certain\ntime -- the time when the author wrote it. Unfortunately, like all works\nfrom this time period and earlier, all that exists today are copies. \n\n> \n> Cutting all of the crap out of the way (ie god wrote it) could anyone answer\n> the following:\n> \n> 1. How old is the oldest surviving copy of the new testament?\n\nThere are parts of books, scraps really, that date from around the\nmid second century (A.D. 130+). There are some complete books, letters,\netc. from the middle third century. The first complete collection of\nthe New Testament dates from the early 4th century (A.D. 325). Throughout\nthis period are writings of various early church fathers/leaders who\nquoted various scriptures in their writings.\n\n> 2. Is there any truth in my acquaintance\'s statements?\n\nIf you mean that someone discovered thousands of "Bibles" which were all\nperfect copies dating from the last part of the 1st century...No!\n\nIf you mean that there are thousands of early manuscripts (within the\ndates given above, but not letter perfect) and that the most probable\ntext can be reconstructed from these documents and that the earliest\noriginal autographs (now lost) probably were written starting sometime\nshortly after A.D. 50, then yes.\n\n> 3. From who/where did the bible originate?\n\nFrom the original authors. We call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter,\nPaul, James, and one other not identified.\n\n> 4. How long is a piece of string? ;-)\n\nAs long as you make it.\n\n> \n> Adda\n> \n> -- \n\nRegards,\n\nJim B.\n', 'From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nX-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University\n\tof Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither\n\tcontrol over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.\nOrganization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.\nLines: 66\n\nIn article <1ql06qINN2kf@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:\n>>Schneider\n>>>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that\n>>>a certain species has developed in order to survive.\n>>Wait. Are we talking about ethics or morals here?\n>\n>Is the distinction important?\n\nYes.\n\n>>>We see this countless\n>>>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for\n>>>our own system as well.\n>>Huh?\n>\n>Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.\n\nPlease describe these "number of ways" in detail. Then explain the any\ncontradictions that may arise.\n\n>>>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need\n>>>to live in groups,\n>>Here\'s your problem. "we *SEEM* to need". What\'s wrong with the highlighted\n>>word?\n>\n>I don\'t know. What is wrong? Is it possible for humans to survive for\n>a long time in the wild? Yes, it\'s possible, but it is difficult. Humans\n>are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.\n\nDefine "difficult".\n\n>>>and in order for a group to function effectively, it\n>>>needs some sort of ethical code.\n>>This statement is not correct.\n>\n>Isn\'t it? Why don\'t you think so?\n\nExplain the laws in America stating that you have to drive on the right-\nhand side of the road.\n\n>>>And, by pointing out that a species\' conduct serves to propogate itself,\n>>>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that\n>>>such are examples of moral systems with a goal. Propogation of the species\n>>>is a goal of a natural system of morality.\n>>So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral? After all,\n>>in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate\n>>as many women as possible.\n>\n>No. As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality)\n>isn\'t really destructive to the system. It is a worst neutral.\n\nSo if every member of the species was homosexual, this wouldn\'t be destructive\nto the survival of the species?\n\n>>For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates. When\n>>he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who\n>>mates. These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying\n>>to shoot itself in the figurative foot.\n>\n>Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined...\n\nThe whole "theory" needs to be reexamined...\n--\n=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=\n=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=\n', 'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 23\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:\n\n>In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:\n>>Why isn\'t this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever\n>>and had no starting point. ?\n>\n>How does one falsify God\'s existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-\n>tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific\n>creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be\n>able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to\n>purely philosophical arguments.\n\n\tIf given a definite definition of "God", it is sometimes possible to \nfalsify the existance of that God. \n\tBut, when one refuses to give an immutable definition, one can not.\n\n--- \n\n " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "\n\n John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.\n\n\n', "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 9\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nkmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n\n>>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?\n>Because you rarely ever answer them.\n\nNope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple\ntimes.\n\nkeith\n", 'From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)\nSubject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick\nOrganization: the Polyhedron Group\nLines: 21\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu\n\nIn article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,\njoshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:\n> \n> \n> In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> \n> Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:\n> \nLEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians\nbrought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On\nthe LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena\nto the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can\neasly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.\n \njosh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?\n\nLove to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the\nlast chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their\nviews of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly\nimplyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other\nMajor cults of the time.\nPegasus\n', 'From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer)\nSubject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior\nOrganization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG\nLines: 87\nNNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de\n\nIn article <C5r9At.Asv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:\n#In <1qvabj$g1j@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) \n#writes:\n#\n#>In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike \n#Cobb) writes:\n#\n#Am I making a wrong assumption for the basis of morals?  Where do they come \n#from?  The question came from the idea that I heard that morals come from\n#whatever is societally mandated.\n\nIt\'s only one aspect of morality.  Societal morality is necessarily\nvery crude and broad-brush stuff which attempts to deal with what\nis necessary to keep that society going  - and often it\'s a little\nover-enthusiastic about doing so.  Individual morality is a different\nthing, it often includes societal mores (or society is in trouble),\nbut is stronger.  For example, some people are vegetarian, though eating\nmeat may be perfectly legal.\n\n#\n#>#Merely a question for the basis of morality\n#>#\n#>#Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.\n#>#\n#>#1)Who is society\n#\n#>Depends on the society.\n#\n#Doesn\'t help.  Is the point irrelevant?\n\nNo.  Often the answer is "we are".  But if society is those who make\nthe rules, that\'s a different question.  If society is who should\nmake the rules, that\'s yet another.  I don\'t claim to have the answers, either,\nbut I don\'t think we do it very well in Ireland, and I like some things\nabout the US system, at least in principle.\n\n#\n#>#2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?\n#\n#>Depends.\n#On....  Again, this comes from a certain question (see above).\n\nWell, ideally they don\'t, but if they must they should do it by consensus, IMO.\n#\n#>#3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?\n#\n#>By adopting a default position that people\'s moral decisions\n#>are none of society\'s business,\n#\n#So how can we put people in jail? How can we condemn other societies?\n\nBecause sometimes that\'s necessary.  The hard trick is to recognise when\nit is, and equally importantly, when it isn\'t.\n\n# and only interfering when it\'s truly\n#>necessary.\n#\n#Why would it be necessary?  What right do we have to interfere?\n\nIMO, it isn\'t often that interference (i.e. jail, and force of various\nkinds and degrees) is both necessary and effective.  Where you derive \nthe right to interfere is a difficult question - it\'s a sort of\nliar\'s paradox: "force is necessary for freedom".   One possible justification\nis that people who wish to take away freedom shouldn\'t object if\ntheir own freedom is taken away - the paradox doesn\'t arise if\nwe don\'t actively wish to take way anyone\'s freedom.\n#\n#  The introduction of permissible interference causes the problem\n#>that it can be either too much or too little - but most people seem\n#>to agree that some level of interference is necessary.\n#\n#They see the need for a "justice" system.  How can we even define that term?\n\nOnly by consensus, I guess.\n\n#  Thus you\n#>get a situation where "The law often allows what honour forbids", which I\'ve\n#>come to believe is as it should be.  \n#\n#I admit I don\'t understand that statement.\n\nWhat I mean is that, while thus-and-such may be legal, thus-and-such may\nalso be seen as immoral.   The law lets you do it, but you don\'t let yourself\ndo it.  Eating meat, for example.\n-- \nFrank O\'Dwyer                                  \'I\'m not hatching That\'\nodwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon\n',
"From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 11\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\narromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:\n\n>>The motto originated in the Star-Spangled Banner.  Tell me that this has\n>>something to do with atheists.\n>The motto _on_coins_ originated as a McCarthyite smear which equated atheism\n>with Communism and called both unamerican.\n\nNo it didn't.  The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War.\nIt was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's.\n\nkeith\n",
'Subject: Re: Feminism and Islam, again\nFrom: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu\nOrganization: Wesleyan University\nNntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu\nLines: 30\n\nIn article <1993Apr14.030334.8650@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n> In article <1993Apr11.145519.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:\n>>\n>>There\'s a way around that via the hadith, which state that silence is\n>>taken to mean "yes" and that women may not speak before a judge, who\n>>must conduct the marriage.\n> \n> Actaully, that\'s a false hadith, because it contradicts verses in the\n> Quran, that says women may testify- speak before a judge.\n> \n> Hadiths are declared false when they contradict the Quran.  Hadiths\n> weren\'t written during the revelation or during the life of the prophet,\n> and so may contain errors.\n\nSo the only way you can tell a false hadith from a true one is\nif it contradicts the Quran?  What if it relates to something\nthat isn\'t explicitly spelled out in the Quran?\n\nAlso, the Quran wasn\'t written down during the life of Muhammed\neither.  It wasn\'t long after, but 20 years or so is still long\nenough to shift a few verses around.\n\nKarl\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |\n| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |\n| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n',
'Subject: Fluids vs Liquids\nFrom: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)\nOrganization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.\nLines: 18\n\nwest@next02.wam.umd.edu (Brian West) writes:\n[ deleted ]\n>A similar analogy can be made with glass. For those of you who don\'t \n>know, glass is a liquid (go ask your science teacher) and DOES flow.\n[ deleted ]\n\n  If your science teacher tells you glass is a liquid, try to get a different\nscience teacher B^).  Glass is a supercooled fluid, it is not a liquid (except\nat very high temperatures).  The definition of liquid includes "readily takes\nthe form of its container".  Let\'s try to be more accurate here.  We don\'t want\npeople to think we\'re creationists now do we?\n\n\n  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford\n         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll\n  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic\n  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix\n\n',
'X-Mailer: TMail version 1.17R\nFrom: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>\nOrganization: Nobody but me -- really\nSubject: Re: Is THOU SHALT NOT KILL ever applied in the Bible?\nDistribution: world\nLines: 15\n\nIn <1pdj4bINNrtr@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)  wrote:\n#     Are there any places in the Bible where the commandment "Thou \n#     shalt not kill" is specifically applied?  That is, where someone \n#     refrained from killing because he remembered the commandment.\n\n  No, for the excellent reason that there IS no such commandment.\n\n  Aside from that, please note that the Abrahamic literary tradition\n  is strong on narrative, light on dialog, and virtually nonexistent\n  w/r/t introspection.\n\n--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---\n--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---\n--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---\n',
'From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)\nSubject: Re: thoughts on christians\nIn-Reply-To: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM\'s message of 16 Apr 93 05: 10:18 GMT\nOrganization: Compaq Computer Corp\nLines: 26\n\n>>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:\n\nRB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:\n>EVER HEAR OF\n>BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn\'t preying on the young, I don\'t know what\n>is...\n>\nRB>   \nRB>   No, that\'s praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes\nRB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the\nRB>   priest really wears under that chasible.\n\nThe same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.\n\nI\'ll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently\nwalked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware\ndrinking beer and watching football.  \n\nKind of changed my opinion a bit.  They didn\'t seem so menacing after\nthat.\n\n\n--\nEd McCreary                                               ,__o\nedm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\\_<, \n"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/\'(*)\n',
'From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)\nSubject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)\nOrganization: University of Joensuu\nLines: 9\n\n\tLong time, no see.\n\n\t\t\tAndreas\n\n-- \n\n\t\tAndreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint\n\n\tNo ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !\n',
'Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Dragons & Mice\nFrom: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O\'Hare)\nOrganization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas\nNNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.cc.utexas.edu\nLines: 17\n\nHe sounds really cute, Morte!  Kinds like _pete\'s dragon_, maybe smaller,\nmaybe a different species.. winge\'d?  (shakespear wing-ED)\n\nI\'ve always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of\nmouse in Cinderella (walt disney).  I grew up sort of as an only child,\npart time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty\ncommonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking\nhot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my\nmice were playmates, more than advisors.\n\nCould curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list,\nin all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies,\nmultiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked\nimaginary friends?\n\nthanks,\nsheilagh, wanting a bunch of library catalouge topics to search thru\n',
'From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re)\nSubject: Re: atheist?\nReply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA\nOrganization: MegaByte Digital Telecommunications\nLines: 33\n\nTony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n\n>My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much\n>belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there\n>care to comment? As far as I can tell, strong atheists are far\n>outnumbered on alt.atheism by weak atheists.\n\nAt the cost of repudiating the FAQ, I think too much is made of the\nstrong vs weak atheism issue, although in the context of alt.atheism,\nwhere we\'re continually attacked on the basis that strong atheists\n"believe" in the non-existence of god, I think the separation is a\nvalid one.\n\nTo cover my arse, what I\'m trying to say is that there is an\ninfinitely grey area between weak and strong, as well as between\nstrong and the unattainable mathematical atheism (I wish!).  Whereas I\n_logically_ can only support the weak atheist position, in effect I am\na strong atheist (and wish I could be a mathematical one).  To\njustify my strong atheist position I believe I need only show that\nthe evidence presented in favour of any of the gods under scrutiny\nis faulty.\n\nIf I read the FAQ correctly, no argument for the existence of god\n(generic, as represented by mainstream theologians) has ever been\nfound to be unassailable.  To me this is adequate evidence that the\n_real_god_ is undefinable (or at least no definition has yet been\nfound to be watertight), which in turn I accept as sufficient to\nbase a disbelief in each and every conceivable god.\n\nI\'m a little fuzzy on the edges, though, so opinions are welcome\n(but perhaps we should change the thread subject).\n-- \nLucio de Re (lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA) - tab stops at four.\n',
"From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org\nSubject: God's promise of Peace\nOrganization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway\nLines: 6\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu\n\nPSA 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his  tender  mercies  are\nover all his works.\n\nJER 13:14  And I will dash them one against another, even the fa-\nthers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor\nspare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.\n",
'From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)\nSubject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO\nOrganization: Monash University\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 14\n\n (U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:\n: Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago:\n: \n: 666 south ASHLAND avenue.\n: \nActually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.\n\n\n+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+\n|  Andrew Bulhak\t     | :plonk: n. The sound of Richard Depew        |\n|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |   hitting the ground after being             | \n|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |   defenestrated by a posse of angry Usenet   |\n|  Victoria, Australia       |   posters.                                   |\n+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+\n',
'From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)\nSubject: Re: Yeah, Right\nLines: 30\n\nBenedikt Rosenau writes:\n\n>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?\n\nIf you\'re talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,\nit\'s obviously a risk one takes.\n\n>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge\n>is contradictive.\n\nI\'m not an objectivist, so I\'m not particularly impressed with problems of\nconceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of\ntrying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary\nexperience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from\nthe perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the\nperspective of what\'s being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).\n\nAn analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is\nthat the "better" descriptive language is not available.\n\n>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish\n>that?\n\nThis word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you\ncan show how reliability can be determined.\n-- \nC. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,\n                  +    but strife closed in the sod.\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:\ntove!mangoe       +    the marv\'lous peace of God."\n',
'From: Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com\nSubject: Re: Bible Quiz\nOrganization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro Ma.\nLines: 20\nNNTP-Posting-Host: m72.eng.stratus.com\n\n\nIn article <1993Apr16.130430.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu wrote: \n>In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n>>    Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. \n>> \n>     Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God\n                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>     of inbreeding to which you are his only son.\n\n\na) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file.  It sums up a great\n   deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence.\nb) Atheism isn\'t an "other religion".\n\n\nsm\n=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\nSteve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com    () "If a man empties his purse into his\nMy opinions <> Stratus\' opinions ()   head, no one can take it from him\n------------------------------   ()   ---------------Benjamin Franklin\n',
"From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 34\n\nIn article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:\n>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.\n>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them\n>from subjective values, before we go any further.\n\n\nAtoms are not objective. They aren't even real. What scientists call\nan atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes \ncertain physical, observable properties of our surroundings. All\nof which is subjective. \n\nWhat is objective, though, is the approach a scientist \ntakes in discussing his model and his observations. There\nis no objective science. But there is an objective approach\nwhich is subjectively selected by the scientist. Objective\nin this case means a specified, unchanging set of rules that\nhe and his colleagues use to discuss their science.\n\nThis is in contrast to your Objective Morality. There may be an\nobjective approach to subjectively discuss your beliefs on\nmorality. But there exists no objective morality.\n\nAlso, science deals with how we can discuss our observations of \nthe physical world around us. In that the method of discussion\nis objective ( not the science; not the discussion itself ).\n\nScience makes no claims to know the whys or even the hows sometimes\nof what we can observe. It simply gives us a way to discuss our\nsurroundings in a meaningful, consistent way.\n\nI think it was Neils Bohr who said (to paraphrase) Science is what\nwe can _say_ about the physical world.\n\n-jim halat\n", "From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)\nSubject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.44\nOrganization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA\nLines: 42\n\n TEXT 44\n\n bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam\n tayapahrta-cetasam\n vyavasayatmika buddhih\n samadhau na vidhiyate\n \nbhoga--to material enjoyment; aisvarya--and opulence; prasaktanam--for\nthose who are attached; taya--by such things;\napahrta-cetasam--bewildered in mind; vyavasaya-atmika--fixed in\ndetermination; buddhih--devotional service to the Lord; samadhau--in\nthe controlled mind; na--never; vidhiyate--does take place.\n \n TRANSLATION\n\n\tIn the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and\nmaterial opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute\ndetermination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take\nplace.\n \n PURPORT\n\n\tSamadhi means fixed mind.'' The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,\nsays, samyag adhiyate 'sminn atma-tattva-yathatmyam: When the mind is\nfixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samadhi.''\nSamadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense\nenjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.\nThey are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.\n\nBhagavad-Gita As It Is\nBooks of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami\n\n\n ---------------------------------------------------------\n | Don't forget to chant: |\n | |\n | Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare |\n | Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare |\n | |\n | Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA |\n | (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us) |\n ---------------------------------------------------------\n", "From: rm03@ic.ac.uk (Mr R. Mellish)\nSubject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?\nOrganization: Imperial College\nLines: 33\nNntp-Posting-Host: 129.31.80.14\n\nIn article <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:\n>\n>\n>\n> Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about\n>it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts\n>on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom\n>stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort\n>of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus.\n[most of post deleted]\n>\n> Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like these religious postings to\n>stop, NOW! \n>\n> \n>Thanks,\n>\n> Dana\n>\n> \n> \nThere is an easy way out....\nPost the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large\ncapitals,\n\n EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER\n\n:)\n\n-- \n------ Robert Mellish, FOG, IC, UK ------\n Email: r.mellish@ic.ac.uk Net: rm03@sg1.cc.ic.ac.uk IRC: HobNob\n------ and also the mrs joyful prize for rafia work. ------\n", 'From: west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar)\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nNntp-Posting-Host: next15csc.wam.umd.edu\nReply-To: west@next02.wam.umd.edu\nOrganization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park\nLines: 35\n\nIn article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. \nRyan) writes:\n> In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu> \nwest@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:\n> >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. \n> >Ryan) writes:\n> >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu> \n> >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:\n> >> \n> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*\n> >> \n> >> \tI dispute it.\n> >> \n> >> \tErgo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.\n> >\n> >\tI dispute your counter-example\n> >\n> >\tErgo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and\n> >\tI am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH\n> \n> \tNo. The premis stated that it was undisputed. \n> \n\nFine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)\n\nDispute that. It won\'t matter. Prove me wrong.\n\nBrian West\n--\nTHIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been\nTHIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an\nOK, SO IT\'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow, \nposted by west@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."- \nwho doesn\'t care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park) \n** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**\n', "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <RN652B5w165w@tweekco.uucp>, alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)\nwrote:\n> Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet\n> BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially\n> if he runs into me in a dark alley.\n\nPlease, please don't make Barney to a modern martyr/saviour mythical\nfigure. I detest this being, and if humans will create a religion in his\nname, then life will be unbearable :-).\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n", "From: peavler@fingal.plk.af.mil (Ninja Gourmet)\nSubject: Scarlet Horse of Babylon (was Daemons)\x1b\nOrganization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM\nLines: 20\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: fingal.plk.af.mil\nKeywords: dead horse, Horse of Babylon\n\nIn article <1qilgnINNrko@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.) writes:\n|> Its easy...\n|> 667 >is< the neighbor of the beast (at 666)-\n|> the beast lives at the end of a cul-de-sac.\n|> r.\n\nI noticed this dead horse in your Keywords line. Is this the famous scarlet horse\nof Babylon that the Beast (that's 666 for you illuminatti) rides on in those\nwonderful mediaeval manuscripts. If so, I fear your announcement that the old\ngirl is dead may be premature. I bet$20 on her to place in the 6th race at The\nDowns last Sunday, and she slid in a bad fifth. So she is not dead. She is just\ncomatose. (like god that way, I suppose).\n\nNinja Gourmet\nWill fight for food.\x1b \n\n-- \nJim Peavler\t\t\tMy opinions do not exist.\npeavler@plk.af.mil\t\tThat is why they are called\nAlbuquerque, NM\t\t\t\tMY opinions.\n",
'From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)\nSubject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword\nOrganization: University of Virginia\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>\n>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,\n>died today?\n\nNo, and Im especially unhappy that these 70+ people died in an assault\non private property with government armored vehicles.\n\nI am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing\nout of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze \nthemselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that\nramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting\ntoxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY\nanything could go wrong.\n\n\n--\nLegalize Freedom\n',
'From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)\nSubject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword\nOrganization: Red Barn Data Center\nLines: 191\n\nIn article <sandvik-210493014635@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>In article <C5tCz8.4z9@rbdc.wsnc.org>, royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)\n>wrote:\n>> In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n>> >In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, \n>> >sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...\n>> ...\n>> >>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,\n>> >>died today?\n>> \n>> \tIt\'s amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.\n>> \tOne thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself\n>> \tagainst the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)\n>> \tmade  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.\n>\n>Frankly speaking I don\'t care who started this whole show. I just \n>feel sad about the children that were trapped, and had to die\n>for a case that didn\'t have any reason whatsoever. All Mr. \n>Koresh could have done would have been to release these 19\n>children. \n\n\tCOuld he?  And the first three that died, when guns ablazing in came\n\tthe BATF and FBI?\n\n\tI imagine I would have some trouble giving up my children to\n\tsomeone who had just shot -- what -- two of them?\n\n\tNB:  It takes two sets of guns in a situation like this.\n\n>\n>Yes, I put the blame on Koresh and similar fanatical religious\n>leaders that think more about their cause than about keeping\n\n\tFanatical:  those whowill not tolerate another\'s way of life\n\tReligious:  Based on emotional, internal, or otherwise\n\t\tlacking in commonly defined _scientific_ basis,\n\t\tincluding legal ones, such as this old saw:\n\n\t\t\tInnocent untilproven guilty\n\n\t\tnot\n\t\t\tInnocent until presumed guilty\n\n\tWho is the fanatic?  Note who is dead; this usually bespeaks\n\ta fair bit for the idea that the OTHER side also had lethal\n\tweapons, used fatally.\n\n\t\tThey are dead:  the children.\n\t\t\tAt best Koresh was an asshole and the government\n\t\t\tcriminally negligent in its hadni\\ling of the case.\n\n\t\t\tAt worst, Koresh and his followers were\n\t\t\t\tinnocent\n\t\t\t\tnot brainwashed\n\t\t\t\tguilty of illegal arms possession\n\t\t\t\t\t(as yet unproven)\n\t\t\t\tand murderedd\n\t\t\t\talong with 25 children\n\t\t\tThey cannot speak for themselves\n\t\t\tMembers of the (surviving, alive, and not burned\n\t\t\t\tto death) BATF/FBI can, and are\n\t\t\t\tinappropriately\n\t\t\t\tto the public eye\n\t\t\t\toutside the bounds of their legal authorities\n\t\t\t\t\tread the charter:\n\t\t\t\t\tthe Constitution specifies that\n\t\t\t\t\tthe COURTS convict, while the\n\t\t\t\t\tenforcement arm INVESTIGATES,\n\t\t\t\t\tand that the evidence involved\n\t\t\t\t\tshuld not be disseminated in a\n\t\t\t\t\tway to harm or injure a party\n\t\t\t\t\tinvolved prior to that action;\n\t\t\t\t\tits called slander or libel\n\t\t\t\t\t(even where factually true butthen\n\t\t\t\t\tdistoted or disseminated with intent\n\t\t\t\t\tto harm\n\t\t\t\tfor the purpose of covering their butts\n\n\t\t\tbecause the bottom line is:\n\t\t\t\tthey SAID they wanted the kids to get out\n\t\t\t\t\talive\n\t\t\t\tand theFBI, the BATF, Ms. Reno, the Prez,\n\t\t\t\t\tand EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSICK\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSELFSERVING\n\t\t\t\t\t\tGROUP OF UPRIGHT ANIMALS\n\t\t\t\t\tthat used to be a freedom loving\n\t\t\t\t\tpeaceful country called\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAmerica:  look up the name,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tit might surprise you\n\t\t\t\thas turned the "point the finger of blame"\n\t\t\t\ton the OTHER guy.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tand LET THOSE KIDS DIE.\n\n\t\t\t\tNote well:  they lived 51 days; they only\n\t\t\t\tdied when attacked by outside force.\n\n\t\t\tSPock\'s World, Diane Duane:\n\n\t\t\t\tThe spear in the heart of another\n\t\t\t\tis the spear in your own ....\n\n\t\tALL of us are responsible.\n\n\t\tIam; you are.  The question is not whether, but how:\n\n\t\t\tGuess what:  you get to make up your own mind\n\t\t\ton that.\n\n>children out from the war zone. I\'m not ashamed of this statement.\n\n\tWho created the war zone?  You should be ashamed of bypassing that.\n\tIt\'s the same damned (Literally) comment made by the folks in\n\tthe former Yugoslavia to justify Ethnic Cleansing:\n\n\t\t"Gee, they had the guns, all they had to do was surrender".\n\n>\n>To justify other means does not eliminate the fact that children\n>died for a cause that they should not have been part of. \n\n\tWhose "cause" did they die for?  The one where they lived,\n\tpeacibly, to all known purposes (until proven in COurt,\n\tfolks!), or the Cuase of Righteous Government SafeGuarding \n\tThe Freedom Of The CHildren\n\n\t\tWho are now dead.\n\n\n\tAgainI say:\n\n\t\tI do NOT know who did what\n\t\tI was NOT there.\n\t\tThe FBI leaders show moral SICKness trying to\n\t\t\tconvict in the press ahead of schedule\n\t\tAnd you should look over your shoulder,\n\n\t\tbecuase if there is anything my ruminations that\n\t\tactually  sets onto real fact of what happened\n\n\t\t\tand I do not know that; I am defending\n\t\t\tpeople who ahving been burned to death cannot\n\t\t\tspeak for themselves\n\n\t\tyou may, in 22-5 years, find that the concept in our\n\t\tCourt system  has gone from\n\n\t\t\tDue Processss\n\n\t\tto\n\n\t\t\tDue Profit\n\n\t\tand the BATF come to collect their fair share of the tax\n\t\ton the value of your house if you rented it for income\n\n\t\t\twhich is going down now, folks.\n\t\t\tRead Bankruptcy 1995\n\t\t\t\tIts accurate in figures\n\t\t\t\tand it bypasses the greedy\n\t\t\t\t\tbusinessman and\n\t\t\t\t\tmankers who have\n\t\t\t\ttaken profit from the corruption\n\t\t\t\tof our govbernment.\n\n\t\t\tLook to where the money went, folks.\n\n\t\t\tYou  got $10 for medicare that paid a doctor for\n\t\t\t$00.50 worth of medicine.\n\n\t\t\t\tThis is the customaryprofitmargin\n\t\t\t\tto businessmen for goernment entitlements.\n\n\tWho wll own the land of the cult now?  Note well:  it WAS nonproift,\n\treligious, and nontaxable.  Large tract of land .... hmmm.\n\n\tUse your brains, folks:  it happened Germany, and it can happen\n\there.\n\t\t\t4.3 trillion (admitted) and counting....\n>\n>Kent\n\nroyc.\n\n>---\n>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n\n\n',
'From: mimir@stein.u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: The Friends of Loki Society\nLines: 27\nNNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu\n\nIn article <1qsqar$n8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:\n>\n>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:\n>\n>>\n>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the\n>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition. The inner order is\n>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis. \n>>\n>\n>\tJust wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?\n>Warning: There is no point in arguing who\'s "legit" and who\'s not. *WHICH*\n>Golden Dawn are you talking about?\n\n Which Golden Dawn? How about the original from 100 years ago?\n\n>\tJust for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)\n>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas\n>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,\n>\n>\tAny takers? :-)\n\n No. No Rosicrucian would ever admit or deny being such.\n\nWassail,\nGrendel Grettisson\n\n', 'From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com\nSubject: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)\nLines: 114\nReturn-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>\n\nTony-\n\nI read your post, it was nothing new, I had seen much the same in other\ntypical"Christian" anti-gay sentimental literature. Gay people are and will\ncon- tinue to be persecuted as long as such propaganda petpetuates. You may\nbe unaware of all the statistica "findings" concerning African-Americans that\nhave been published and used by various groups to re-enforce their own bias\nagainst African-Americans. We usually think of the KKK in these instances,\nbut there are many other groups. Of course, the vast majority of the public\nscoff at such findings and documents today, but that was not always the case.\nFortunately African-Americans had "whites" who supported their \'cause\' and\npublic sentiment was eventually (if not entirely) turned around. There was\neven a Civil War, and anti-negro sentiment increased. In fact, until laws\nwere put in place to protect the inalienable rights of Blacks it was pretty\nmuch legal to discriminate against them.\n\nI know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free\nform discrimination. You may think that I have been deceived or something,\nthat is your perogative. My church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)\nopenly affirms the rights of oppressed people of all segments of society,\nincluding gays. We believe the Gospel message of preaching to all creation\nand making disciples. We believe in the Lord\'s great commandment to Love,\nand we beleive in standing up for the oppressed, even if it is not popular\nto do so. I really like my church for last reason the most. I can find a\nchurch almost anywhere in the valley that stands for the Gospel and believes\nin the commandment of Love (though I\'m hard-pressed to find many who actually\nsho Love), but not many are willing to champion the oppressed, especially\nwithin their own community. I may have lost face with the greater Christian\ncommunity for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists\nagainst the oppression of African-Americans. Many were even killed and\ntreated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such. I guess I\'ve\ndecided the challenge is worth it.\n\nIn my talks with gay men and women I have heard tragic story after tragic\nstory centering around failed marriages, wives and husbands who are straight\nwho have been hurt in the process, etc. Funny thing is, I don\'t know of one\ncase where the parents, ex-wives, or even children have continued to reject\ntheir gay family member (son, daughter, ex-husband, father, etc.) after they\nbegan to take part in some form of support group, like PFLAG.\n\nI\'m apalled by the legislation which passed in Colorado, and am equally out0\nraged that such slimey people as Louis Sheldon (from the Tradition Values\nCoalition) have been actively working in the Christian underground to garner\nsupport within several (8 I believe) states this coming November for more\noppressive legisation against gays.\n\nPerhaps you don\'t get it, and maybe you never will. Many didn\'t get it in the\nMiddle Ages and the proclaimed God\'s will be done as they massacred thousands\nin witch hunts and inquisitions.\n\nThe message that comes through, loud and clear, by proponents against gay\nrights and against gays in general, is that there is a strong dislike, even\nhatred for gays, whether you want to call it such or not (it doesn\'t change\nthe results). The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the\nfinal effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a\n"conditional" love for gays. Condition: Change and we\'ll love you. This is\nsure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"\nlove, one that calls people "just as they are." Sure there are things that\nwill \'naturally\' change, and habits (like alcoholism, wife beating, etc.) that\nneed to be changed through some sort of therapy. But then there are things\nlike left-handedness, etc. that no amount of beating it out of people, is\ngoing to result in anything more than an outward conforminty to "other\npeople\'s expectations." In the process this coerced conformity causes many\npeople a great deal of harm, especially when it is caused by people who have\nnothing more to gain from it that to become even more puffed up about their\nown sense of pseuper-spirituality.\n\nThis is sad, but I thoroughly believe that one day it will change. It may be\nunpopular to cry for justice and equality when the basis has to do with\nsomething very personal like \'sexuality\' (a taboo subject even today), but I\nfirmly believe in the rights of individuals to be free from impose regulation\non thier bedrooms. It\'s funny that most straight people have successfully\nremoved restrictive and oppressive legislation against invasive legislation,\nbut we like to maintain this little chestnut of repression...as though it\nhelps us maintain a sense of superiority over at least one segment of society.\nGay people are not criminals.\n\nAnother interesting thing happened recently. A very prominent charismatic\nchurch in the Silicon Valley (here) had two of it\'s pastors arrested for self-\nadmitted charges of pederasty (men having sex with boys). This had apparently\nbeen going on for some time (a couple years?), but since the charges were\nvoluntary, and the church worked closely with the police, so I imagine that\nwas how they managed to downplay it in the media. How could such a thing\nhappen when the church, itself, has an ex-gay ministry? One of my friends\nrecently told me he was "approached" by someone who is going through the\nreparitive therapy there, and he was thoroughly convinced that the request for\ndinner was not an invitation to attend the ministry.\n\nThese are difficult times we live in, but providing hostile environments and\ncreating and perpetuating an atmosphere that breed hate and violence is not\nthe call of the Christian community. The results of the passing amendment in\nColorado has created an organization who\'s posters are appearing all over\nColorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,\nbut the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto\nis "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.\n\nThis is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are\nembracing.\n\nWe Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression\ntowards those we feel don\'t \'measure up\', and constant beratement from\norganizations like The Christian Research Institute, while they do have a good\npurpose also, their major work seems to be finding new and better ways of\nexcluding people.\n\nThe Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"\npeople. I have several of Dr. Martin\'s books and find them quite helpful,\nespecially concerning \'cults.\' But it seems that CRI, has become a cult unto\nitself. Why don\'t we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people\nto Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?\n\nWhatever\n\nRich :-(\n', "From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.\n\t<1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> \n\t<sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>\nLines: 7\n\nIn article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> \nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>Ignorance is not bliss!\n\nIgnorance is STRENGTH!\n\nHelp spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!\n", 'From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)\nSubject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: VideOcart Inc.\nX-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3\nLines: 23\n\n: >> The death penalty was conceived as a deterrent to crime, but the legal\n: >> shenanigans that have been added (automatic appeals, lengthy court\n: >> battles, etc.) have relegated that purpose to a very small part of what\n: >> it should be. Hence the question is, do we instate the death penalty as\n: >> it was meant to be, and see if that deters crime, or do we get rid of\n: >> it entirely?\n\n I doubt the death penalty was supposed to be a "deterrent" to crime. If so,\nwhy doesn\'t every crime carry a death penalty ? That would be effictive\nwouldn\'t it ???\n\n The death penalty is a punishment, much like a$50 fine for speeding is\na punishment. Anyway, somebody with murder on the mind doesn\'t much care\nabout the consequences. I think another problem is that people dont think\nthey will get caught. If I wanted to kill another person, I wouldn\'t \ncare what the penalty was if I didn\'t think I would get caught.\n\n  If it was to be strictly a deterrent, it should have been more along \nthe lines of torture.\n\nDave Fuller\ndfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com\n\n',
'From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 16\n\nKeith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:\n: \n: \tWild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that \n: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much \n: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed \n: leapard in your bed. [ and I don\'t mean a male lover in a leotard! ]\n\nKeith, \n\nIf the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever\nproposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences\nif such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to\nbe?\n\n\nBill\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 17\n\nIn article <930419.122738.5s2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew\n<mathew@mantis.co.uk> wrote:\n> \n> lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) writes:\n> > Values can also refer to meaning.  For example in computer science the\n> > value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE.\n> \n> Not in Lisp.\n\nTrue, all you need to define is one statement that defined one\npolarity, and all the other states are considered the other\npolarity. Then again what is the meaning of nil, false or true :-) ?\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)\nSubject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 28\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nIn article <93108.155839PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> <PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:\n[Pitt vs. Penn State controversy deleted]\n>\n>Bringing this back to alt.atheism relevance:  So the guy says we\'re going to\n>Hell.  That isn\'t sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator.  At worst,\n>it\'s bad etiquette.  (Unless you really believe that someone is using his\n>account without his knowledge/permission, which is actually against the law.)\n>-----\n>Patrick Saxton          "Pitt is a second-rate school in a second-rate city."\n>pts102@PSUVM.psu.edu                                         - anon\n>pts@ecl.psu.edu         ob.atheism:  "In Batman we Trust"\n>\n\nNo.  It wouldn\'t be sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator if this\nwas just some guy saying that atheists are going to hell.  The point was \nthat recently many messages were posted from that address.  Each of these\nmessages was posted to a different newsgroup, with the apparent intent of\nprovoking the readers of that particular group.  This, along with the fact\nthat these posts were written in all-caps, makes these posts suspect.\nWhoever is using this account is using it irresponsibly.  If it is the\nintended user, they should consider appropriate action.  If it is someone\nelse-- which seems a possibility, then this is also reason to report it.\n\tWe get many posts in the flavor of the one that started this thread.\nIt is only because I have seen posts on other groups by this user that I\nam considering action.\n\nBrendan\n\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 29\n\nIn article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca\n(Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call\n> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture\n> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps\n> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any\n> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any\n> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any\n> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.\n\nWell, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,\nthen I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and \nmake this to a show case. But when we are dealing with a fanatical\nRevelation preacher that kills ultimately everyone, including the\ninnocent children, then it seems that we are dealing with Christians \nand christians (note the spelling).\n \n> Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a \n> supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using\n> the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.\n\nAnd does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order \nword a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting\ntheir small children burn to ashes while they scream?\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 14\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.231641.21652@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:\n\n>The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that\n>while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for\n>a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse\n>(or anywhere in the Qur\'an).\n\n\tThere is no notion of heliocentric, or even galacticentric either.\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\t\t\n\t\t"My sole intention was learning to fly."\n',
'Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analy\nFrom: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Harding University, Searcy, AR\nNntp-Posting-Host: acs.harding.edu\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24In-Reply-To: sandvik@newton.apple.com\'s message of Sun, 18 Apr 1993 00:06:17 GMTLines: 28\nLines: 28\n\nIn <sandvik-170493170457@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com writes:\n\n> In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis\n> Kriz) wrote:\n> > I\'m going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would\n> > not have thought even possible. I want to begin the process of\n> > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on\n> > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present\n> > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of\n> > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there. \n> \n> Dennis, I\'m astounded. I didn\'t know you were interested to even\n> study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...\n> \n> Cheers,\n> Kent\n> ---\n> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n\n"Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is\nright, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute,\nif there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your\nmind dwell on these things." Phil. 4:8.\n\nMore cheers,\nJohn\nNunnally@acs.Harding.edu\n\n', "From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal)\nSubject: Re: Gilligan's island, den of iniquity\nOrganization: National University of Singapore\nX-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4\nLines: 21\n\nbeb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes:\n: In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:\n: >: >> Gilligan = Sloth\n: >: >> Skipper = Anger\n: >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed\n: >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony\n: >: >> Ginger = Lust\n: >: >> Professor = Pride\n: >: >> Mary Ann = Envy\n: >\n: >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism\n: \n: Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery\n: Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism\n: Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism\n: Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd\n: The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll\n: Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism\n: John McGiver - Butterfly flicking\n: Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust\n: Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust\n", 'From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)\nSubject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars\nOrganization: The Portal System (TM)\nDistribution: world\n <1993Apr14.130150.28931@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> <79615@cup.portal.com>\n <1qn5rn$q7p@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>\nLines: 144\n\n930418\n\nDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Honestly.]\nThe word of Sin is Restriction. [Would I kid you?]\n\n\nDoes one man\'s words encompass the majestic vision of thousands\nof individuals?  Quoting a man is not the same as quoting the\nOrder.  Taken out of context, words can be interpreted much\ndifferently than had one applied them within the confines of\ntheir original expression.\n\nI think this is the case regarding Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior \nof the Order to which I belong.  When he included that bit\nfrom Merlinus X\' he did us all a service.  He showed us the extremes\nto which Order members have been known to go in their fervor.\nI have little knowledge regarding Reuss\' background, but surely\nhe was an unusual man, and he was an important force in the Order \nfor many years.\n\nYet as people change so do Orders change, and while we look back\nso carefully at the dirty laundry of O.T.O. remember that this is\nonly the surface skim and that many perspectives are now encompassed\nwhich extend beyond any one individual.  I hope to show that there\nwas and is much room for a difference of opinion within the Order\nitself, perhaps by testing the limits myself.\n\n\nLet us examine this issue a bit more closely....\n\n"In 1895, Karl Kellner (1850-1905), a wealthy Austrian industrialist\nand paper chemist, as well as a high-grade Mason, founded the Ordo\nTempli Orientis.  Kellner had traveled widely in the East, where he\nmet three adepts who instructed him specific magical practices.  \nKellner\'s efforts to develop the Order were later assisted by Franz\nHartmann, Heinrich Klein and Theodore Reuss, who had worked together\nprior to joining the O.T.O.  The Order was first proclaimed in 1902\nin Reuss\'s Masonic publication, \'Oriflamme\'.  On Kellner\'s death,\nReuss succeeded him as Outer Head [O.H.O.].  The \'Jubilee\' edition of\nthe \'Oriflamme\', published in 1912, announced that the Order taught\nsecret of sexual magic.\n \n"Theodore Reuss was an interesting character.  Born June 28, 1855 in\nAugsburg, he entered Masonry in 1876.  He was a singer, journalist and\npossibly a spy for the Prussian political police, infiltrating the Socialist\nLeague founded by Karl Marx\'s daughter and her husband.  Reuss was\nlater associated with William Wynn Westcott, a leader of the Golden\nDawn, who later introduced him to John Yarker.  Yarker chartered Reuss to\nfound the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim in Germany.  After several\nattempts to concretize various Masonic Rites, Reuss settled on the\ndevelopment of the O.T.O.\n\n"The Order experienced reasonably steady growth under Reuss\' leadership.\nFor example, he chartered Papus in France, Rudolph Steiner in Berlin\nand H. Spencer Lewis in the USA.  In 1912, the historic meeting between\nReuss and Crowley occurred.  Crowley wrote that Reuss came to him and\naccused him of revealing Order secrets.  When Crowley looked at it afresh,\nthe initiated interpretation of sexual magick unfolded itself to him for\nthe first time.  Reuss appointed Crowley as Supreme and Holy King of all\nthe English speaking world, and it was this authorization that he invoked\nwhen publishing the material of the Equinox.\n\n"Reuss resigned as Outer Head of the Order in 1922 after suffering a\nstroke and named Crowley his successor.  All was well until 1925 when\n_The Book of the Law_ was translated into German.  There was a break\nin the continuity of the Order.  Manyk members split with the new O.H.O.\nover the book, which Crowley was actively promulgating through the Order.\nHe had earlier revise dthe Order rituals at Reuss\'s request, deeply\ninfusing the doctrines of the New Aeon revelation."\n\n_An Introduction to the History of the O.T.O._, by Ad Veritatem IX\'\n\nWithin _Equinox III:10_, Edited by \n  Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior, Rex Summus Sanctissimus,\n    Caliph of the United States of America,\n      Published by Samuel Weiser, 1990.\n\n\n\nThere are many possible reasons that our Frater Superior included this\nmaterial in _Equinox III:10_.  And this is the real point, is it not?\nWhy did he wish to publish such things about the history of his own\norganization?  Does he represent a dogmatic threat to the principle\nof Thelema?  Or is he exercising his True Will and putting forth very\ncomplex pictures with no easy answers?  A picture which leaves room\nfor very many interpretations.\n\nIt is quite easy for me to see, for example, that all of O.T.O. derived\nout of the dribble of faltering Masonry, purchased by clever hucksters\nwith an ounce of courage and some writing ability to aid them.  And I\ncan take that all the way down to our present Caliph, whose feeble\nsupport of the \'Law of Thelema\' is laughable at best.\n\nWould I be thrown out of the Order for speaking in this way?  \nWill I?  \nI think not.\nWhy?  Because my Frater will see it as a perspective, an interjection\nI am using as an example.  My illustration shows that we may express things\nin the context of a larger work and the true significance of this may be\nquite difficult to apprehend at first.\n\nSo it may be with OTO and Merlinus X\'.  Please look O.T.O. more carefully.\nI do not support Reuss\'s words myself, as I am not qualified to assess\nthem, and I am critical of their pomposity.  If I who am a member of\nthe Order take such a stand and am allowed to continue doing so, then\nwhat can this say about the health of the Order?  Does it mean that\nthe Order has \'gone soft\' and abandoned its moral principles?  Or\ndoes it mean that it is strong in its ability to let the will of\nuniversal kinship arise on its own, not shackled by some dogmatic\nrequirement?  How shall we resolve these two possibilities?\n\n\nI find a high calibre of individual associated with Ordo Templi Orientis.\nThey are often quite intelligent and sometimes very well versed in arcane\nor usual information.  They are quite often artists and geniuses.  \nHaving met some 20 longstanding members in the SF Bay Area (many who are or\nwere very heavily involved with the Order), I can vouch for the integrity\nof the organization as it stands.\n\nI have sometimes questioned the policy of Hymenaeus Beta.  In these moments \nI followed my intuition, and I\'ve found little to stop me from requesting\na Second initiation from a different O.T.O. body.  I\'m happily participating\nin social groups (Feasts or Initiations) and have come to know the Gnostic\nMass well enough for my tastes.\n \n\nThis doesn\'t make me an authority on Order politics and explanations, however.\nI can only hypothesize and relay to you what I understand based on my\nlimited contact with other members.\n\nI urge you not to take the words of Merlinus X too far.  There are many\nways to interpret words, and many people who have become involved with\nthe Order feel very strongly about the sanctity of personal freedom\nand the preservation of individual vision.\n\nI welcome other comment on this issue and will be writing more in response\nto other posts in this thread.\n\n\nInvoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.\n\nI am I!\n\nFrater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII\n',
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 20\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <115686@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n\n>No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as\n>belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This\n\n\n\tWho does the categorizing?\n\n\t\n---  \n\n  " I\'d Cheat on Hillary Too."\n\n   John Laws\n   Local GOP Reprehensitive\n   Extolling "Traditional Family Values."\n\n\n\n\n',
'From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)\nSubject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-1\nOrganization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 81\n\nDROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 1\n\nA  D R O P L E T\nFrom The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur\'an\n\nTranslations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of \nBediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor\n\nVOL 1, No 11, Part 1\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n   \t\t NINETEENTH LETTER  \n\n\t\t MU\'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI \n(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW)       \n(SAW: PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)\n\nIn His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!\nThere is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH\'s) Praise.\n\nIn The Name Of  Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful\n\n   "He is who has sent His Messenger with\nguidance and the religion of truth  to make it\nsupreme over all religion:  and sufficient is Allah\nas a Witness.  Muhammad is the Messenger of\nAllah, and those who are with him are firm\nagainst the unbelievers and merciful among\neach other.  You will see them bowing and\nprostrating  themselves, seeking Allah\'s grace\nand His pleasure.  Their mark is on their face\nthe sing of prostrafion; this is their similitude in\nthe Torah and Indgil." [the Our\'an 48:28-29]\n\n   Since the Nineteenth and Thirhy-first Words\nconcerning the mission of Muhammad (SAW) prove his\nprophethood with decisive evidences, we assign the\nverification of that subject to those Words.\n   As a supplement to them, we will merely show here\nin Nineteen Signs, some  of the flashes of that great\ntruth.\n\n   FIRST SIGN:  The Owner and Master of this universe\ndoes everything with knowledge, disposes every affair\nwith wisdom, directs everything all-seeingly, treats\neverything all-knowingly, and arranges in everything with\nHis will and wisdom such causes, purposes and uses that\nare apparent to us.  Since the One who creates knows,\nsurely the One who knows will speak, since He will\nspeak, surely He will speak to those who have\nconsciousness, thought, and speech.  Since He will speak\nto those who have thought, surely He will speak to\nhumankind, whose make-up and awareness are more\ncomprehensive of all conscious beings.  Since He will\nspeak to humankind, surely He will speak to the most\nperfect of mankind and those most worthy of address and\nhighest in morality, and who are qualified to guide\nhumanity; then He will certainly speak to Muhammad (SAW), \nwho, as friend and foe alike testify, is of the highest \ncharacter and morality, and who is obeyed by one fifth\nof humanity, to whose spiritual rule half of the globe has\nsubmitted, with the radiance of whose light has been\nillumined the future of mankind for thirteen centuries, to\nwhom the believers, the luminous segment of humanity,\nrenew their oath of allegiance five times a day, for\nwhose happiness and peace they pray, for whom they call\ndown Allah\'s blessings and bear admiration and love in\ntheir hearts.\n\n   Certainly, He will speak to Muhammad (SAW),\nand Indeed He has done so;  He will make him the\nMessenger, and Indeed He has done so; He will make\nhim the guide for the rest of humanity, and Indeed He\nhas done so.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\nTo be continued In$a Allah.\nYour Br. Irfan in Islam.\n\n\n', 'From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 31\n\nIn article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:\n\n>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n\n>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini\n>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution\n>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie\'s\n>>behavior was not completely excusable.\n\n>Why should a fatwa issued by Khomeini be relevant to anyone who\n>doesn\'t live in Iran?\n\nIssued by Khomeini it shouldn\'t be relevant to anyone. But issued\nby an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to\nany muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims\nare required to respect.\n\n> Who is it that decides whether Rushdie\'s behavior is excusable? \n\nAnyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning,\nif you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what \nsense of "excuse" you have in mind.\n\n\n> And who cares if you think it is inexcusable?\n\nOnly someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously.\nObviously you don\'t care, nor do I care that you don\'t care.\n\n\nGregg\n', 'From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nOrganization: University of Washington, Seattle\nLines: 75\nNNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\n\nIn article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:\n\nIt appears that Walla Walla College will fill the same role in alt.atheist\nthat Allegheny College fills in alt.fan.dan-quayle.\n\n>\tFirst I want to start right out and say that I\'m a Christian. It \n>makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo\'s book- liar, \n>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he \n>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity, \n>in the process he became a Christian himself.\n\nConverts to xtianity have this tendency to excessively darken their\npre-xtian past, frequently falsely. Anyone who embarks on an\neffort to "destroy" xtianity is suffering from deep megalomania, a\ndefect which is not cured by religious conversion.\n\n>\tThe arguements he uses I am summing up. The book is about whether \n>Jesus was God or not. I know many of you don\'t believe, but listen to a \n>different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what \n>others have to say. \n\nDifferent perspective? DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!\n\n>\tThe book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a \n>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.\n\n(sigh!) Perhaps Big J was just mistaken about some of his claims.\nPerhaps he was normally insightful, but had a few off days. Perhaps\nmany (most?) of the statements attributed to Jesus were not made by\nhim, but were put into his mouth by later authors. Other possibilities\nabound. Surely, someone seriously examining this question could\ncome up with a decent list of possible alternatives, unless the task\nis not serious examination of the question (much less "destroying"\nxtianity) but rather religious salesmanship.\n\n>\tSome reasons why he wouldn\'t be a liar are as follows. Who would \n>die for a lie?\n\nHow many Germans died for Nazism? How many Russians died in the name\nof the proletarian dictatorship? How many Americans died to make the\nworld safe for "democracy". What a silly question!\n\n>Wouldn\'t people be able to tell if he was a liar? People \n>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing \n>someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did \n>heal people. \n\nIs everyone who performs a healing = God?\n\n>\tNiether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn \n>to someone who was crazy.\n\nIt\'s probably hard to "draw" an entire nation to you unless you \nare crazy.\n\n>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example \n>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see \n>this right away.\n>\tTherefore since he wasn\'t a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the \n>real thing. \n\nAnyone who is convinced by this laughable logic deserves\nto be a xtian.\n\n>\tSome other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in \n>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal \n>and Crucifixion. I don\'t have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I \n>write I will use it.\n\nDon\'t bother. Many of the "prophecies" were "fulfilled" only in the\neyes of xtian apologists, who distort the meaning of Isaiah and\nother OT books.\n\n\n\n', 'From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)\nSubject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view\nLines: 25\nOrganization: Walla Walla College\nLines: 25\n\nIn article <16BAFC876.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n>From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\n>Subject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view\n>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 13:15:18 GMT\n>In article <healta.60.734567658@saturn.wwc.edu>\n>healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:\n> \n>>>Sorry, it is generally accepted that the rise of the inquisition is\n>>>the reason why torture was introduced outside the Romanic countries\n>>>at the end of the Middle Ages. In other words, the Holy Mother Church\n>>>which is lead infallibly by the Holy Ghost has spread it.\n>>\n>>The Roman Catholic Church claims to be lead by the "infallable" pope.\n>>That\'s why she (the RC Church) has done so many wicked things to Xtians and\n>>non-believers alike.\n> \n> \n>The rationale that the pope speaking ex cathedra is infallible is based\n>on the claim above. The dogma about the pope is of Jesuitic origin and\n>has not been been accepted before the mid of the last century.\n> Benedikt\n\nYou\'re right. Thanks for enlightening me.\n\nTammy\n', "From: xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nOrganization: Oryx Energy\nLines: 7\nNNTP-Posting-Host: what.oryx.com\nX-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5\n\n: Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed\n: for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the \n: character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out\n: the rest the hard way.\n: \n\nKoresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.\n", 'From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 22\n\nkmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n> ( I am almost sure that Zyklon-B is immediate and painless method of \n> death. If not, insert soem other form. )\n> \n> And, ethnic and minority groups have been killed, mutilated and \n> exterminated through out history, so I guess it was not unusual.\n> \n> So, you would agree that the holocost would be allowed under the US \n> Constitution? [ in so far, the punishment. I doubt they recieved what would \n> be considered a "fair" trial by US standards.\n\nDon\'t be so sure. Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during\nWorld War II. If you\'re prepared to say "Let\'s round these people up and\nstick them in a concentration camp without trial", it\'s only a short step to\ngassing them without trial. After all, it seems that the Nazis originally\nonly intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly\nbecause they couldn\'t afford to run the camps because of the devastation\ncaused by Goering\'s Total War. Those who weren\'t gassed generally died of\nmalnutrition or disease.\n\n\nmathew\n', "From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\nNntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au\nOrganization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia\nLines: 70\n\nbissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:\n\n>\tThe book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a \n>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.\n\nOr he was just convinced by religious fantasies of the time that he was the\nMessiah, or he was just some rebel leader that an organisation of Jews built\ninto Godhood for the purpose off throwing of the yoke of Roman oppression,\nor.......\n\n>\tSome reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would \n>die for a lie? \n\nAre the Moslem fanatics who strap bombs to their backs and driving into\nJewish embassies dying for the truth (hint: they think they are)? Were the\nNAZI soldiers in WWII dying for the truth? \n\nPeople die for lies all the time.\n\n\n>Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People \n\nWas Hitler a liar? How about Napoleon, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan? We spend\nmillions of dollars a year trying to find techniques to detect lying? So the\nanswer is no, they wouldn't be able to tell if he was a liar if he only lied\nabout some things.\n\n>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing \n>someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did \n>heal people. \n\nWhy do you think he healed people, because the Bible says so? But if God\ndoesn't exist (the other possibility) then the Bible is not divinely\ninspired and one can't use it as a piece of evidence, as it was written by\nunbiased observers.\n\n>\tNiether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn \n>to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example \n\nWere Hitler or Mussolini lunatics? How about Genghis Khan, Jim Jones...\nthere are thousands of examples through history of people being drawn to\nlunatics.\n\n>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see \n>this right away.\n>\tTherefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the \n>real thing. \n\nSo we obviously cannot rule out liar or lunatic not to mention all the other\npossibilities not given in this triad.\n\n>\tSome other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in \n>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal \n\nPossibly self-fulfilling prophecy (ie he was aware what he should do in\norder to fulfil these prophecies), possibly selective diting on behalf of\nthose keepers of the holy bible for a thousand years or so before the\ngeneral; public had access. possibly also that the text is written in such\nriddles (like Nostradamus) that anything that happens can be twisted to fit\nthe words of raving fictional 'prophecy'.\n\n>and Crucifixion. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I \n>write I will use it.\n [stuff about how hard it is to be a christian deleted]\n\nI severely recommend you reconsider the reasons you are a christian, they\nare very unconvincing to an unbiased observer.\n\nJeff.\n\n", "Organization: Penn State University\nFrom: <SEC108@psuvm.psu.edu>\nSubject: Why the bible?\nLines: 38\n\n One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that\nwithout bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup.\nIt almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to\ntear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted\nwrite about.\n\n How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you\nwant to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously,\nthe bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each\nother. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next\nit says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a\ndeity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they\ninvented.\n\n For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to\nEVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god\nsay not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think\nthat if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?\n\nWas Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?\n\n I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that\nit is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the\npoorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east\nis because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome\nxtian after a bad dream.\n\n If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a\nstreetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.\n\n\n\n\n\n*** Only hatred and snap judgements can guide your robots through life. ***\n*** Dr. Clayton Forester ***\n*** Mad Scientist ***\n\n", "From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: [lds] Thief goes to Paradise; Kermit goes off tangent\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 65\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu\n\n\nKermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something.\nI will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and \nthen address Kermit's offering.\n\nJohn Redelfs originally wrote...\n\n jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his\n jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse. It\n jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his\n jr> commandments. Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.\n\nTom Albrecht responded...\n\n ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.\n\nJohn Redelfs wrote back that...\n\n jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing. Salvation is better.\n jr> Refer to John 14:2.\n\nI responded to John that...\n\n rw> I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.\n rw>\n rw> Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved\n rw> may enter paradise.\n\nTo which Kermit wrote...\n\nkt> Incomplete reference:\nkt>\nkt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group\nkt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death\nkt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using\nkt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the\nkt> LDS position.\nkt>\nkt> Christ went to paridise after his death and burial.\nkt>\nkt> He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness.\nkt>\nkt> When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father.\nkt>\nkt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical\nkt> terms for those places.\n\n I respond.\n\n The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise\n before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against \n that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox\n belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16), \n the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).\n\n The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent\n on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was\n contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the \n cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of \n the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.\n Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.\n\n=============================\nRobert Weiss\npsyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu\n", 'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: Yeah, Right\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 54\n\nIn article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu>\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n \n>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?\n>\n>If you\'re talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,\n>it\'s obviously a risk one takes.\n>\n \nI see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify\nas intellectual engagement, too?\n \n \n>>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge\n>>is contradictive.\n>\n>I\'m not an objectivist, so I\'m not particularly impressed with problems of\n>conceptualization. The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of\n>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary\n>experience. One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from\n>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the\n>perspective of what\'s being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).\n>\n \nExactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language\nis not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical\nterminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the\nrepresentation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly,\nnot every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept\nrepresentations are the eternal hassles between religions.\n \nAnd QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will\nbe agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.\n \n \n>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is\n>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.\n>\n \nWith the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue\nthat the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still\nflourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified -\nshowing that it is bogus.\n \n \n>>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish\n>>that?\n>\n>This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you\n>can show how reliability can be determined.\n \nHaven\'t you read the many posts about what reliability is and how it can\nbe acheived respectively determined?\n Benedikt\n', 'From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)\nSubject: Re: Religion and homosexuality\nKeywords: being liberal\nReply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu\nOrganization: University of Chicago\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 32\n\n> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:\n\n>I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to\n>religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality\n>is a sin in the bible. Well, I don\'t see how it could be considered a sin,\n\nFirst of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly\nmentioned in the bibles, so you\'re off the hook there, I think. In\nany event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who\ndo not consider a person\'s sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual\nas an "immoral lifestyle choice"\n\n>Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it\n>seems that being pro-choice and being religious don\'t mix either. I am told\n\nThis is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.\n\nMy former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and\nprofessionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am\na Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination,\nam pro-choice. You needn\'t go looking to the Unitarian Universalists\n(which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual\nidentification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us\nwho believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.\n\nGood Luck on your journey!\n\n-- \nDaniel O\'Connell\nMeadville/Lombard Theological School\nUniversity of Chicago Divinity School\n<dsoconne@uchicago.edu>\n', "From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)\nSubject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions\nOrganization: Florida State University Computer Science Department\nReply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n>[Many good points deleted. Anyone who missed it should see the original.]\n>Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to\n>make a bible verse salad just don't cut it. Those of us who\n>want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing\n>as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.\n\nTrue, except that I've known few fundies who had enough sense to\nbe embarrassed by Josh McDowell.\n\n(Okay, maybe a cheap shot. But I'm in that kind of mood.)\n\nBill Mayne\n\n", "From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)\nSubject: Re: note to Bobby M., again\nNntp-Posting-Host: nin\nOrganization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England\nLines: 30\n\nIn article <1993Apr13.213527.3706@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n\n> How about people who are not religous? Take the inner city. There are\n> many people that care little for religion. Lot of crime. Lot of\n> murder. This is the other end- lack of religion- that allows wrong to\n> happen.\n\nI lived in Tokyo for a year and a half, and one of the many reasons why\nI intend to go back indefinitely is the freedom one enjoys when one can\nwalk anywhere (and I mean *anywhere*) at any time of day or night and not\nfeel uneasy, even if one's from an ethnic minority as I was.\n\nClues for Bobby (why do I bother?): (i) Tokyo is a city, and inner Tokyo\nis an inner city; (ii) there is a negligible level of violent crime, and\na street murder will be a lead item on *national* TV news; (iii) the\npopulation is almost universally atheistic.\n\nNext time I go for a stroll around Beirut at night, I'll let you know how\nit compares.\n\n> Bobby Mozumder\n\nCheers\n\nSimon\n-- \nSimon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk\nDepartment of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296\nUniversity of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714\nCoventry CV4 7AL, U.K.\n", "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 20\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour\n>died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such\n>behaviour, entirely by chance.\n\nThat's the entire point!\n\n>Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an\n>organism evolves cooperative behaviour?\n\nYes!\n\nNatural morality is a morality that developed naturally.\n\n>What about the natural morality of bee dance?\n\nHuh?\n\nkeith\n", 'From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.\nLines: 109\n\n\nMy turn to jump in! :)\n\nIn article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>(reference line trimmed)\n>\n>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>\n>[...]\n>\n>>There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the \n>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit\n>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is \n>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself\n>>requires an appeal to morality.\n>\n\nI think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.\nRecursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask\nany assembly programmer.)\n\n>Yes.\n>\n>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are\n>>asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you\n>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,\n>>and we form our morals to achieve it?\n>\n>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and\n>propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is\n>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we\n>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,\n>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,\n>we shall be moral unto what end?\n\nThe oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty\nand the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie\nand deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of\nproving. Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost, \nalmost always at the cost to another. Whos liberty is more inalienable?\nSimilarly for right of life. When one person must die if he is to save\nanother, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable? \nThat leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty, \nespecially for serial killers. Whos life and liberty is more valuable,\nthe serial killer, or the victim? According to that beautiful line,\nthose two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be\nable to remove them. This _includes_ government. Admittedly the serial\nkiller has restricted some people\'s life and/or liberty, but is not his\nown life/liberty inviolate also? According to the declaration of independence,\nit is.\n\n>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule. And, I thought I had\n>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.\n\nOooh, I like that. It means that killing an infant is not murder because\nit cannot be against its will. Reason, an infant has no will as such.\n\nSimilarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.\n\nAlso, under current law, accidental killing is still murder. How will you\ninclude that?\n\n>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an\n>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.\n>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I never claimed that our\n>>>system of morality was an objective one.\n>>I thought that was your very first claim. That there was\n>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was\n>>that murder is wrong. If you don\'t want to claim that any more,\n>>that\'s fine.\n\nThe only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the\nrules. I.e. Might Makes Right. That is survival. Now what is wrong\nwith that?\n\n>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most\n>every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system\n>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that\n>it is a very good approximation, but we can\'t be perfect.\n\nIf you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as\nimplemented has used that in reality. Sorry, I don\'t deal as much in\nfiction, as I do in reality. \n\n>>And by the way, you don\'t seem to understand the difference between\n>>"arbitrary" and "objective". If Keith Schneider "defines" murder\n>>to be this that and the other, that\'s arbitrary. Jon Livesey may\n>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all\n>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what\n>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi\n>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".\n\nWELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)\n\nWhat is NOT arbitrary? If you can find some part of society, some societal\nrules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me. I don\'t think\nthere are any.\n\n>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental\n>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.\n>\n>keith\nSounds like euphemisms to me. The difference seems to be, that objective\nis some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that\nI don\'t like OR don\'t understand. \n\nM^2\n\n\n', 'From: porta@wam.umd.edu (David Palmer)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God\'s Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nNntp-Posting-Host: rac3.wam.umd.edu\nOrganization: University of Maryland, College Park\nLines: 23\n\nIn article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:\n>In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:\n>>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com> \n>>\n>>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a\n>>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?\n>\n>Christian: washed in the blood of the lamb.\n>Mithraist: washed in the blood of the bull.\n>\n>If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,\n>do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been\n>reserved. Please choose another animal, preferably one not\n>on the Endangered Species List. \n>\n>\n\nHow about Cockroaches?\n-- \n***************************** porta@wam.umd.edu ****************************\n\tWhat for you say you monkey when you have little fluffy tail\nlike rabbit, rabbit! \n Tazmanian Devil \n', 'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 131\n\nIn <2942956021.3.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:\n\n>>DATE: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:00:39 GMT\n>>FROM: Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>\n>>\n>>In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>>\n>>>Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?\n>>\n>>I don\'t know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying \n>>(1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,\n>>and\n>>(2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.\n>>\n>>[WTC = World Trade Centre, which was the building that was blown up, I\n>>think.]\n>>\n>>Okay... to make some comments...\n>>\n>>(1) The person has only been accused -- innocent until proven guilty,\n>>remember?  Secondly, there seem to be some holes in his accusation that\n>>I read about.  For instance, if they guy used that particular van to\n>>blow up the building, and then to go back and claim his deposit back\n>>afterwards, he must be incredibly stupid.  \n\n>Perhaps Salamen was one of those "uneducated" Muslims we hear so much about.\n\n>>Nevertheless, he was\n>>apparently smart enough to put together a very sophisticated bomb.  It\n>>doesn\'t seem to fit together, somehow.  \n\n>Actually, Salameh was not the ONLY person involved.  The other fellow was\n>a chemical engineer working for Allied Signal who had specifically studied\n>explosive devices in school (believe it or not - we actually allow radical\n>Muslim types to study things like this in our universities - so much for\n>the price of freedom)\n\nFrom what I read, the other fellow told Salameh how to put it together\nover the phone.  The bomb was supposedly some sort of sophisticated\ntype, so to put a (I assume complicated) sophisticated bomb together\nfrom instructions _over the phone_ (!) one must need some brains I would\nexpect.\n\n>>Despite this, there have\n>>already been many attacks and threats against mosques and Muslims in the\n>>United States as a consequence of his accusation, I have read.\n>>\n\n>O.K., now please tell us where this is happening.  I live in the U.S. and\n>I have heard very little about these mosque attacks.  There are many mosques\n>in Houston, Texas and I would like to know what is going on so I can verify\n>this.  Or is the Great Jewish Media Conspiracy keeping us from knowing about\n>this in the U.S.  We heard about the mosque attacks during the Desert Storm\n>venture, so why is it so quiet now?  Maybe it is localized to New Jersey?\n\nI read this in an article in "The Australian Muslim Times", the\nnewspaper (weekly) of the Australian Muslim community.  \n\nIf this is true, perhaps one of the Muslims based in North America (if\nthey see this posting) can elaborate.\n\n>>(2) Islamic teachings teach against harming the innocent.  In the Qur\'an\n>>it explicitly teaches against harming innocents even in times of war.\n>>The blowing up of the WTC and harming innocents is therefore in blatant\n>>contradiction to Islamic teachings.\n\n>This means absolutely nothing.  Plenty of people commit violence while \n>following what they think are valid religious principles.  I have seen\n>people post many things here from the Koran which could be "misinterpreted"\n>(if that is the explanation you wish to use) by an "uneducated" Muslim to\n>allow them to harm idolators and unbelievers.  The first thing every Muslim\n>says is that no Muslim could have done that because Islam teaches against\n>harming innocents.  And we are supposed to take you WORD that it NEVER\n>happens.   What do you think is the consequence?  Does Allah strike them\n>down before the "alleged" violence occurs?  Of course not.  Muslims commit\n>the violent act and then everyone hides behind verses in the Koran.  We\'re\n>pretty hip to that trick.  And I even doubt that it will come up in the\n>trials.  \n\n>"My defense is that I am Muslim and Islam teaches me not to harm the innocent.\n>Therefore, the people who were killed must not have been innocent.  Sure we\n>set off the bomb, your honor, but you must remember, sir, I am a Muslim.\n>Allah is all-powerful.  Allah would not have allowed this.  Are you insulting\n>my religion?"\n\n>Great defense, eh?\n\n>Just admit that there are some incredibly stupid, violent Muslims in the \n>world and stop hiding from that fact.  It does no one any good to deny it.\n>It only makes the more reasonable Muslims look like they are protecting the\n>bad ones.  Can you see that?\n\nI don\'t deny this fact.\n\nThe thrust of my argument here is that \n\n(a) Salameh is, according to US law, innocent as he has not been found\nguilty in a court of law.  As his guilt has not been established, it is\nwrong for people to make postings based on this assumption.\n\n(b) Islam teaches us _not_ to harm innocents.  If Muslims -- who perhaps\nhave not realized that Islam teaches this -- perform such actions, it is\n_not_ _because_ of the teachings of Islam, but rather _in spite of_ and\n_in contradiction to_ the  teachings of Islam.  This is an important \ndistinction.\n\nI should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim".  In\ngeneral, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or \noutwardly profess\nsomething in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam\nis considered to be a Muslim.  Thus, one who might do things contrary to\nIslam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a\nMuslim.  If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential\nprinciples, though, then one does leave Islam.\n\nThe term "Muslim" is to be contrasted with "Mu\'min", which means "true\nbeliever".  However, whether a Muslim is in reality a Mu\'min is\nsomething known only by God (and perhaps that person himself).  So you\nwill not find the term Mu\'min used very much by Muslims in alt.atheism,\nbecause it is not known to anybody (except myself and God), whether I,\nfor example, am a "true believer" or not.  For example, I could just be\nputting on a show here, and in reality believe something opposite to\nwhat I write here, without anyone knowing.  Thus, when we say "Muslims"\nwe mean all those who outwardly profess to follow Islam, whether in\npractice they might, in ignorance, transgress Islamic teachings.  By\n"Muslim" we do not necessarily mean "Mu\'min", or "true believer" in\nIslam.\n\n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   \n\n',
'From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)\nSubject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism\nOrganization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre\nLines: 16\nDistribution: sfnet\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi\n\nIn <kmr4.1466.734160929@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n     \n>     "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn\'t that\n>      contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and\n>      reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."\n>           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2\n\nDoes anybody have Bobby\'s post in which he said something like "I don\'t\nknow why there are more men than women in islamic countries. Maybe it\'s\natheists killing the female children"? It\'s my personal favorite!\n\n-- \nSami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode\na137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."\n-------------------\'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"\nEros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don\'t agree with Eros.\n',
"From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nOrganization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century\nLines: 20\n\ncotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:\n\n>Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch\n>Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to\n>commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not\n>suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire\n>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities\n>knocked over a lantern.\n\nIn two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.\n\nWhatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility\nfor those deaths lies with Koresh.\n\nP.\n-- \n moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke\nclive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception\njames trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM\n brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza \n",
'From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)\nSubject: Re: New Member\nOrganization: Salvation Army Draft Board\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:\n>\n>  Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going\n>to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of\n>the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist,\n>but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure\n>why people believe the way they do - I don\'t much care if they have a \n>different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong.\n>I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers \n>dont seem to have the capability to do.\n>\n>  Happy to be aboard !\n>\n>Dave Fuller\n>dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com\n\nWelcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people\nare known by on alt.atheism (didn\'t know we had such a list, did you).\nYour have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time\nyou post an article, sign with your nickname like so:\nDave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again.\n\nJim "Humor means never having to say you\'re sorry" Copeland\n--\nIf God is dead and the actor plays his part                    | -- Sting,\nHis words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History\nWithout the voice of reason every faith is its own curse       | Will Teach Us\nWithout freedom from the past things can only get worse        | Nothing\n',
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 26\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n\n>I\'ll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base\n>this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly\n>of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),\n>almost all would want to complain. Therefore I take it that to assert or\n>believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see\n>that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on\n>a rainy day. I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it\n>it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values\n>such as this exist.\n\n\tYou have only shown that a vast majority ( if not all ) would\nagree to this. However, there is nothing against a subjective majority.\n\n\tIn any event, I must challenge your assertion. I know many \nsocieties- heck, many US citizens- willing to trade freedom for "security".\n\n\n--- \n\n " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "\n\n John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.\n\n\n', "From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: 15 Apr 93 God's Promise in John 1:12\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 8\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu\n\n\n\n\tBut as many as received him,\n\tto them gave he power\n\tto become the sons of God,\n\teven to them that believe on his name:\n\n\tJohn 1:12\n", 'From: kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu\nSubject: Re: Bible Quiz\nLines: 12\nNntp-Posting-Host: ccsua.ctstateu.edu\nOrganization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT\n\nIn article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n> In article <1qgbmt$c4f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cr866@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank D. Kirschner) writes:\n> \n>> ---\n> \n>    Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. \n>         \n> \n     Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God\n     of inbreeding to which you are his only son.\n\n                                                  Pope John Paul\n',
'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Societal basis for morality\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <C5prv8.5nI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike\nCobb) wrote:\n> we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally mandated morality?\n> Pardon the extremism, but couldn\'t I murder your "brother" and say that I was \n> exercising my rights as I saw them, was doing what felt good, didn\'t want\n> anyone forcing their morality on me, or I don\'t follow your "morality" ?\n\nGood statement! Should we apply empirical measurements to define exact\nsocial morals? Should morals be based on social rules? On ancient\nreligious doctrines? It seems there will *NEVER* be a common and single\ndenominator for defining morals, and as such defining absolute\nand objective morals is doomed to fail as long as humans have \nthis incredible talent of creative thinking.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n',
'Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)\nFrom: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <C4w5pv.JxD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:\n\n>There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread\n>that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can\n>be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need\n>for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is\n>no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by\n>physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is\n>determnined.\n\n\tThis posts contains too many fallacies to respond too.\n\n\t1) The abolishment of divinity requires the elimination of \nfreewill. \n\n\tYou have not shown this. You have not even attempted to. However,\nthe existance of an Omniscience being does eliminate freewill in mortals.*\n\n\t* Posted over five months ago. No one has been able to refute it, \nnor give any reasonable reasons against it.\n\n--\n\n\n       "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.  \n        They do what god tells them to do. "\n\n        S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) \n',
'Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nFrom: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu\nOrganization: Wesleyan University\nNntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <115621@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n> In article <1993Apr15.135650.28926@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:\n> \n>>I don\'t think you\'re right about Germany.  My daughter was born there and\n>>I don\'t think she has any German rights eg to vote or live there (beyond the\n>>rights of all EC citizens).  She is a British citizen by virtue of\n>>her parentage, but that\'s not "full" citizenship.  For example, I don\'t think\n>>her children could be British by virtue of her in the same way.\n> \n> I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an\n> application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but\n> I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable\n> in this case.\n\nNope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The \nethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years \nautomatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the\nTurks who are now in their third generation in Germany can\'t.\nIt\'s not a very good example to show citizenship without descent.\n\nKarl\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |\n| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |\n| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n',
'From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>\nSubject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!\nIn-Reply-To: <1993Apr15.192037.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>\nNntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1\nOrganization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa\nX-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)\nLines: 26\n\n>DATE:   15 Apr 93 19:20:37 EDT\n>FROM:   kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu\n>\n>In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:\n>>\n>> [s.c.a quotes deleted]\n>> \n>> It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means\n>> to be atheist.  There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than\n>> I thought...\n>\n>Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam\n>with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists\n>are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea\n>among muslims.  I got no response.  Asking about the unknown,\n>I guess...\n\nYou should have tried one of the soc.culture groups in the Middle East\nor South Asia area (they are a little more open than the Islam channel).  \nI think someone defined atheists as polytheists cuz they say we think the \nworld created itself (or something like that) so each particle is a God \nwhich created the other Gods.  The soc.culture.african is also nice for \nsome contrasting viewpoints on the benevolence of religion.  Especially \nwhen Sudan is mentioned.\n\n\n',
"From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 37\n\nIn article <30121@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:\n>In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n>>\n>>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.\n>>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the\n>>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that\n>>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient \n>>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue\n>>is his status at the time the crime was committed. \n>\n\nI'll also add that it is impossible to actually tell when one\n_rejects_ god.  Therefore, you choose to punish only those who\n_talk_ about it.  \n\n>\n>-jim halat                             \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n",
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <<Pompous ass\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 28\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\narromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:\n\n>>Look, I\'m not the one that made those Nazi comparisons.  Other people\n>>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany.  They\n>>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew\n>>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger\n>>things.  They said that the motto is but one of the little things \n>You just contradicted yourself.  The motto is one of those little things that\n>nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh?\n\nThe "little\' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People\nsaid that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.\nThey said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they\nweren\'t going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one\nknew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.\n\n>>that is\n>>going to pave the way for other "intrusions."  Of course, if the motto\n>>hasn\'t caused problems in its 40 year history, then I doubt it is going to...\n>It *has* caused problems.  You just ignore every instance when someone\n>describes one to you.\n\nIt has *caused* problems?  Again, no one has shown that things were better\nbefore the motto, or that they\'d likely be better after.  I don\'t think\nthe motto initiates any sort of harassment.  Harassment will occur whether\nor not the motto is present.\n\nkeith\n',
'From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nIn-Reply-To: mangoe@cs.umd.edu\'s message of 4 Apr 93 10:56:03 GMT\nOrganization: Software Engineering Institute\nLines: 33\n\n\n\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n\n>>David Wood writes:\n>>\n>>    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."\n>\n>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin\' way of saying "I don\'t believe\n>what you\'re saying".\n\nAre you making a meta-argument here?  In any case, you are wrong.  \nThink of those invisible pink unicorns.\n\n>Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim.  \n\nI was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims",\nof which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even\nmentioned in my post.\n\n>You may want to\n>complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and\n>I won\'t argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.\n\nWrong.  That was exactly the issue.  Go back and read the context\nincluded within my post, and you\'ll see what I mean.\n\nNow that I\'ve done you the kindness of responding to your questions,\nplease do the same for me.  Answer the Charley Challenges.  Your claim\nthat they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge\nthat I feel certain fools only one person.\n\n--Dave Wood\n',
'From: alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!))\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Longinus Software & Garden ov Delights\nLines: 27\n\nIn article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:\n>\n> Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have\n>probably spent more time than you doing the same. \n>\n> None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the\n>case. \n\nCan we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that\nAMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin\noff of AMORC??\ni would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this\nclaim. \n\n>Study Harder,\n\nStudy Smarter, not Harder! :-)\n\n\n\n-- \n--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<---|---> More. More of Everything. More of Everything for Everybody.\n <-|-> "Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..."\n<---|---> !MaX! Delysid - alamut@netcom.com - ALamutBBS 415.431.7541 1:125/51\n--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n', "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca\n(Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n> I understand and sympathize with your pain. What happened in Waco was a very\n> sad tradgedy. Don't take it out on us Christians though. The Branch\n> Davidians were not an organized religion. They were a cult led by a ego-maniac\n> cult leader. The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,\n> the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ. BTW, David Koresh was NOT\n> Jesus Christ as he claimed.\n\nThe interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never\nclaimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that \nhe would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.\n\nHe was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,\nand make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19\nchildren died, and no God saved them.\n\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n", 'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <<Pompous ass\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 21\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nAndrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:\n\n>>>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they\n>>>should not have available to use.\n>>It is worse than others?\n>Worse? Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the\n>rules the US govt. supposedly follows.\n\nOh?\n\n>>>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read:\n>>> "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"\n>>Would you approve of such a motto?\n>No. ...not unless the only way to get rid of the current one\n>was to change it to such as that.\n\nWhat is wrong with *this* motto, now? If you wouldn\'t approve of\neven that one, I am beginning to think that you just have something\nagainst mottos in general. What do you think of "E plurbis unum?"\n\nkeith\n', "From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 22\n\nJim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:\n\n: The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is\n: mistaken. What of it? Seems pretty obvious to me. Socrates said\n: there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our\n: atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.\n\n\nJim,\n\nI think you must have come in late. The discussion (on my part at\nleast) began with Benedikt's questioning of the historical acuuracy of\nthe NT. I was making the point that, if the same standards are used to\nvalidate secular history that are used here to discredit NT history,\nthen virtually nothing is known of the first century.\n\nYou seem to be saying that the Bible -cannot- be true because it\nspeaks of the existence of God as it it were a fact. Your objection\nhas nothing to do with history, it is merely another statement of\natheism.\n\nBill\n", 'From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)\nSubject: Re: Who\'s next? Mormons and Jews?\nDistribution: usa\nOrganization: University of Pittsburgh\nLines: 38\n\nIn article <1r1et6INNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:\n:\n: pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:\n:\n:::Didn\'t Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly \n:::before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the\n:::lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")\n:\n::This from a guy who preached love, deference of power to God and\n::renunciation of worldly life in exchange for a life of the spirit? If\n::Jesus did in fact command his disciples to arm themselves, I would\n::take that as yet another reason to reject Christian doctrine, for\n::whatever it\'s worth.\n\nLike most religions, the doctrine has good and bad in it. I would \ncertainly reject the current implementations of the doctrine.\n:\n:No. The above is a classic example of taking a scripture out of context.\n:It\'s taken from Luke 22:36. But note vs 37; "For I tell you that this\n:which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, \'and he will be reckoned\n:with lawless ones\'...". He then stated that two swords were enough\n:for the group to carry to be counted as lawless. \n\nSo having more than the politically correct number of weapons was\ncause to be arresed and killed even then, huh?\n\n:Jesus\' overiding message was one of peace (turn other cheek; live by \n:sword die by sword; etc).\n\nYes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to \nbring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."\n:\nRJL\n-- \nRich Loether Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh The Ideas:\nEMail: rjl+@pitt.edu Computing and Info Services Mine,\nVoice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive all\nFAX : (412) 624-6426 Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Mine.\n', 'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 31\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >>Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups\n|> >>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.\n|> >\n|> >So, why "must" they have such laws?\n|> \n|> The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."\n\nOh, Your Highness? And exactly why "should" the quotation\nmarks enclose "laws," not "must."\n\nIn case you didn\'t notice, it\'s the function of the "must"\nthat I wish to ironicise.\n\n|> \n|> If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,\n|> etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society\n|> into chaos.\n\nPerhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour\ndied out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such\nbehaviour, entirely by chance.\n\nAre you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an\norganism evolves cooperative behaviour?\n\nWhat about the natural morality of bee dance?\n\njon.\n', 'From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)\nSubject: Re: A Little Too Satanic\nNntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au\nOrganization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia\nLines: 33\n\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n\n>Nanci Ann Miller writes:\n\n>>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is\n>>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT\n>>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and\n>>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,\n>>literally. If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something\n>>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was\n>>originally inspired by God?\n\n>The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the\n>current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text\n>has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This\n>shouldn\'t be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner\n>are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.\n>-- \nDo you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough\ncurrent versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write\nabove is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek\nOrthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I\'d have to take you to a good\nold library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared\nto a brand new, hot of God\'s tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost\nunrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been\nedited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much\nmore congenial fellow I must say. \n\nIf you like I\'ll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you\nsome quotes. At least the headings haven\'t changed much.\n\nJeff.\n\n', 'From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)\nSubject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)\nOrganization: Colorado Springs IT Center\nLines: 23\nNNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com\n\nhudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:\n> In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:\n> \n> >Why don\'t we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people\n> >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?\n> \n> Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.\n> But we shouldn\'t water down the gospel to draw people in. \n\nVery well put. And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian\nbrother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at \nall, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done? Should Christians \njust ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person? By \nreaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are \nthey using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"? \n\nFrankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to \npass himself off as a \'straight\' Christian in order to have other \nChristians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than \npeople reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. \n\nWalter\n\n', 'From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)\nSubject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars\nOrganization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615\nLines: 18\n\nThyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:\n\n> "This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient\n> Order of Oriental Templars. Ordo Templi Orientis. Otherwise:\n> The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.\n> \nDoes this organization have an official e-mail address these\ndays? (an address for any of the SF Bay Area Lodges, e.g. Thelema\nwould do.)\n 93...\n A.Lizard\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nA.Lizard Internet Addresses:\nalizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM (preferred)\nPacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)\nalizard@gentoo.com (backup)\nPGP2.2 public key available on request\n', 'From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: Re: Concerning God\'s Morality (long)\nOrganization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 56\n\t<1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>\nNNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu\nIn-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>\n\n\njbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:\n> > Sorry, but there are no supernatural\n> > forces necessary to create a pathogen. You are saying, "Since\n> > diseases are bad, the bad entity must have created it." So\n> > what would you say about acid rain, meteors falling from the\n> > sky, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other QUOTE UNQUOTE "Acts\n> > of God?" \n> \n> I would say that they are not "acts of God" but natural\n> occurrences.\n\nIt amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not\nthe result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God")\nand then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.)\nare natural occurrences. Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are\nnatural processes and what are direct acts of God? How do you know that\nGod doesn\'t cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose\nin mind? It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I\'ve seen in\nthe bible.\n\n> >>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of\n> >>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since\n> >>humanity forsook God\'s protection. If we choose to live apart from\n> >>God\'s law (humanity collectively), then it should come as no surprise\n> >>that there are adverse consequences to our (collective) action. One\n> >>of these is that we are left to deal with disease and disorders which\n> >>inevitably result in an entropic universe.\n> > \n> > May I ask, where is this \'collective\' bullcrap coming from? \n>\n> By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with\n> humanity on two levels, individually and collectively. If mankind\n> as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of\n> mankind), then God will allow the consequences of that action to\n> affect mankind as a whole.\n\nAdam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians\nclaim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in\nthe billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after\nthem. Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren\'t\naround to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to\ndo with that tree. But your god never asked us. He just assumes that if\nyou have two bad people then they ALL must be bad. Hmm. Sounds like the\nsame kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting\nhere resorting to. So THAT\'s where they get it... shoulda known.\n\n> Jim B.\n\nNanci\n\n.........................................................................\nIf you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me\nemail (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):\nLying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.\n\n', "Subject: CHRISTIAN DEVIL REVEALED!\nFrom: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.\nLines: 56\n\n>For a while I was puzzled by the the concept of Adam and Eve coming to\n>know good and evil. This is how I resolved it. Within God's universe\n>each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction. There can be no good\n>without evil as an opposite. So the issue is not what you do but to whom\n>you give your allegiance. That is why, even in this sinful state, when we\n>perform an evil act while we are submitted to God He does not place that\n>sinful act to our account (Rom 4:8) In the same vein you can perform all \n>the good deeds in the book, if your life is not under God's control you are \n>still sinning (see Rom 14:23).\n\nNow, take a good look at at, an tell me man, there is no Christian\nDevil? There is, is real, is a virus, a meme, infecting and possessing\nthe good people and keep 'em from becoming human beings with emphasis on\nthe being! Is not a matter of good people an evil people, is all good\npeople see, but some good people vexed of the Christian Devil. An it\ncan't be burn out or lynch out or rape out. Only wise up let I rise up.\nChristian Devil is real man, how else can you explain five hundred years\nof history, even more? Can only be explained by Christians invoke\nChristian Devil.\n\nyou keep on knocking but you can't come in, i got to understand you've\nbeen living in sin, but walk right in and sit right down, i'll keep\non loving you, i'll play the clown, but bend down low, let i tell you\nwhat i know yah\n\ni've been 'buked brothers and i've been stoned, woe, woe, woe, now i'm\nhung by a tree in the the ganging on a few, woe, woe, woe, it doesn't\nmatter who the man is who lives the life he loves, it doesn't matter\nwhat the man does or the honest life he loves, i want somewhere, i want\nsomewhere, hallelujah, hallelujah, somewhere to lay my head, woe is me\n\nonly ska beat in 'eaven man\n\nstiff necked fools, you think you're cool, to deny me for simplicity, yes\nyou have gone, for so long with your love for vanity now, yes you have\ngot the wrong interpretation mixed up with vain imagination, so take jah\nsun and jah moon and jah rain and jah stars, and forever yes erase your\nfantasy, yeah, the lips of the righteous teach many, but fools die for\nwant of wisdom, the rich man's wealth is in his city, the righteous\nwealth is in his holy place, so take jah sun and jah moon and jah rain\nand jah stars, and forever yes erase your fantasy, destruction of the\npoor is in their poverty, destruction of the soul is vanity, yeah, but i\ndon't want to rule ya, i don't want to fool ya, i don't want to school\nya, things you, you might never know about, yes you have got the wrong\ninterpretation mixed up with vain, vain imagination, stiff necked fools,\nyou think you're cool, to deny me for, oh simplicity\n\nlove to see, when yah move in the rhythm, love to see when you're\ndancing from within, it gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,\neveryone's doing and they're doing their best, it remind i of the days\nin jericho, when we trodden down jericho wall, these are the days when\nwe'll trod true babylon, gonna trod until babylon fall\n\nthen I saw the angel with the seven seals saying, babylon throne going down\n\nwe weeping and we wailing tonight\n", 'From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: Red Barn Data Center\nLines: 26\n\nIn article <C5s9CK.2Bt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:\n> who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were\n\n\tThe word "released" is loaded: until convicted in CXOurt,\n\tmy children are my own.\n\n\tWHen the Feds use this type of loaded logic, you cannot win:\n\t\t1) we accuse you\n\t\t2) we shoot a couple of your kids\n\t\t3) we blame you for those shots\n\t\t4) we harrass you for 51 days\n\t\t5) we tell you to come out or die\n\t\t6) we gas you\n\t\t7) you burn to death\n\t\t8) we blame you (prior to trial) for all of it\n> debating this a few weeks ago.\n>\n>\n>---peter\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n\n\n', 'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 52\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>>>Explain to me\n>>>how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen.\n>>For example, if it were instinctive not to murder...\n>Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there\n>would be nothing voluntary about it.\n\nSee, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant\nif it is "voluntary." Why do you think this?\n\nAnd anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.\n\n>>So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other\n>>beings mimics theirs?\n>You are starting to get the point. Mimicry is not necessarily the \n>same as the action being imitated. A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly" \n>isn\'t necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.\n\nYou are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think.\nLet\'s try this: is it "good" that animals of the same species\ndon\'t kill each other. Or, do you think this is right? \n\nOr do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do\nis either right nor wrong?\n\n\n>>Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but \n>>they don\'t.\n>They do. I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly\n>this, but you seem to have a very short memory.\n\nThose weren\'t arbitrary killings. They were slayings related to some sort\nof mating ritual or whatnot.\n\n>>Are you trying to say that this isn\'t an act of morality because\n>>most animals aren\'t intelligent enough to think like we do?\n>I\'m saying:\n>\t"There must be the possibility that the organism - it\'s not \n>\tjust people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."\n>It\'s right there in the posting you are replying to.\n\nYes it was, but I still don\'t understand your distinctions. What\ndo you mean by "consider?" Can a small child be moral? How about\na gorilla? A dolphin? A platypus? Where is the line drawn? Does\nthe being need to be self aware?\n\nWhat *do* you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of\nthe same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other? Don\'t\nyou find the fact that they don\'t at all significant?\n\nkeith\n', 'From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)\nSubject: Evo. & Homosexuality (Was Re: Princeton etc.)\nArticle-I.D.: srvr1.1psosqINN3gg\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor\nLines: 51\nNNTP-Posting-Host: wormwood.engin.umich.edu\n\n\n Sorry, Bill, I had to clear this up. There may be good evolutionary\narguments against homosexuality, but these don\'t qualify.\n\nIn article <C4vwn0.JF5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:\n>C.Wainwright (eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk) wrote:\n[deletions]\n>: |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function\n[deletions]\n>: So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children?\n>: Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated. Obviously you keep to the\n>: Monty Python song: "Every sperm is sacred". And if, as *you* say, it has\n>: a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own \n>: arguement, natural.\n>\n>Consider the context, I\'m talking about an evolutionary function. One\n>of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a\n>species procreate, those who don\'t have no purpose in that context.\n\n Oh? I guess all those social insects (e.g. ants, bees, etc.) which\nhave one breeding queen and a whole passel of sterile workers are on\nthe way out, huh?\n \n>: These days is just ain\'t true! People can decide whether or not to have \n>: children and when. Soon they will be able to choose it\'s sex &c (but that\'s \n>: another arguement...) so it\'s more of a "lifestyle" decision. Again by\n>: your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they\n>: must be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children. Both are \n>: as "unnatural" as each other.\n>\n>Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists\n>for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That\n>homosexuals don\'t procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and\n>nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.\n\n I refer you to the bonobos, a species of primate as closeley related to\nhumans as chimpanzees (that is, very closely). They have sex all the\ntime, homosexual as well as heterosexual. When the group finds food, they\nhave sex. Before the go to sleep at night, they have sex. After they\nescape from or fight off prdators, they have sex. Sex serves a very important\nsocial function above and beyond reproduction in this species. A species\nclosely related to humans. There is some indication that sex performs\na social function in humans, as well, but even if not, this shows that\nsuch a function is not *impossible*.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n Ray Ingles ingles@engin.umich.edu\n\n "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the\nstars!" - Robert A. Heinlein\n', 'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! (NOT!)\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\n\t<sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com> \n\t<1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca> \n\t<sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com>\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com> \nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>In article <1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>,\n>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n>> This brings up another question I still have to ponder: why is there so \n>> much anti-Semitism? Why do people hate Jews? I don\'t hate Jews. I consider\n>> them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.\n>I don\'t know, I don\'t care about ethnical rights and wrongs myself,\n>but it\'s evident that Christians consider Jews no longer to be the \n>sole selected group of God\'s people -- while Jews consider this to\n>be the case.\n\nChristian anti-Semitism comes from the obvious fact that the Jews should\nknow the Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone else, yet they did not\nconvert to Christianity en mass, thus rejecting "Christian Love."\n\n>No wonder this caused anti-Semitism. One might even\n>wonder that if Christianity didn\'t do this separation, would anti-Semitism\n>have even started?\n\nI don\'t see why not. Where are the rest of the tribal people? What\nhappened to the tribes of the Americas? Culture is seen as different and\nundesirable in the West, particular in the US with its failed "melting\npot concept." Most tribes have been hunted to extinction, the Hebrew\ntribe is one of the few survivers from the Neolithic. Of course it\nbecomes difficult at times to separate Christianity from the Western\nexperience, so perhaps you are right, perhaps it would have been a better \nworld if the cultural experiment in Christianity never happened.\n', 'Organization: Penn State University\nFrom: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>\nSubject: Re: free moral agency\nDistribution: na\n <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>\nLines: 119\n\nIn article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill\nConner) says:\n>\n>dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:\n>\n>: Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing\n>: on moral free agency. That is, how can a god punish a person for\n>: not believing in him when that person is only following his or her\n>: nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or\n>: her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god?\n>\n>I think you\'re letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of\n\n(WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story...\n ...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.")\n\nHow does that qualify?\nIndeed, it\'s almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance.\nI\'ve found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as\n"accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend.\nMany are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but\nthey don\'t meet the other criterions.\nAlso...\n\n>Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of\n>Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the\n\nYou accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to\nlaunch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the\nrequirements of myth.)\n\n>salvation. The idea of punishment is based on the proposition that\n>everyone knows (instinctively?) that God exists, is their creator and\n\nAh, but not everyone "knows" that god exists. So you have\na fallacy.\n\n>There\'s nothing terribly difficult in all this and is well known to\n>any reasonably Biblically literate Christian. The only controversy is\n\nAnd that makes it true? Holding with the Bible rules out controversy?\nRead the FAQ. If you\'ve read it, you missed something, so re-read.\n(Not a bad suggestion for anyone...I re-read it just before this.)\n\n>with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it\n>means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and\n>don\'t know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says\n>that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be\n\n...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting\nit across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn\'t\nmake it any more credible to me.\n\nIf the Bible says that everyone knows, that\'s clearly reason\nto doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged\ngod\'s alleged existance.\n\n>refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that\n>claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is\n>unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is\n>no excuse.\n\n1) No, they don\'t have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far\nfrom universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god;\nit is only a proof that some people have thought that there\nwas a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been\nwriting it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the\ncase of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the\nonly thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it.\nAnd that\'s ignoring the problem of whether or not all the\ninterpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct.\n\n2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible.\n\n3) Again, read the FAQ.\n\n>freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to\n>ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known\n>in both cases. That an atheist can\'t accept the evidence means only\n\nBzzt...wrong answer!\nGravity is directly THERE. It doesn\'t stop exerting a direct and\nrationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the\nother hand, doesn\'t generally show up in the supermarket, except\non the tabloids. God doesn\'t exert a rationally undeniable influence.\nGravity is obvious; gods aren\'t.\n\n>Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so\n>much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason\n>always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in\n\nNo, human reason hasn\'t always come back to the existance of\n"God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god".\nIn other words, it doesn\'t generally come back to the xtian\ngod, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much\nof oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn\'t pop up as\nthe idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces\nare and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view,\nhuman nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to\nbe and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural\ntendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful\nthinking.\n\n>I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently\n>reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much\n>different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not\n\nXtianity is no more reasonable than most other religions, and\nit\'s reasonableness certainly doesn\'t merit eminence.\nDivine justice...well, it only seems just to those who already\nbelieve in the divinity.\nFirst, not all atheists believe the same things about human\nnature. Second, whether most atheists are correct or not,\nYOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at\nthe least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric\napproach. Try looking at the outside world as well when\nyou attempt to sum up all of humanity.\n\nAndrew\n', 'From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is \nOrganization: Who, me???\nLines: 15\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:\n>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]\n>\n>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:\n>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact\n>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?\n>\n>Please define this "objective morality".\n>\n>While you\'re at it, please state the theory of creationism.\n\nStill searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.\nSlimy tactic.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t- Kevin\n', "From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)\nSubject: Studies on Book of Mormon\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Orden del Lobo Estepario\nReply-To: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl\nLines: 20\n\nHi!\n\nI don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent\nstudies about the Book of Mormon.\n\nI don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,\nbut haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning\nBiblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study\nin style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.\n\nFor example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?\nThere are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later\ndiscovered by archeologist?\n\nYours in Collen\n\nAndres Grino Brandt Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21\nagrino@enkidu.mic.cl Chile\n\nNo hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta\n", "From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)\nSubject: Re: Question for those with popular morality\nOrganization: University of Georgia, Athens\nLines: 11\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.165709.4347@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:\n>>But there is a base of true absolute morality that we can stand on.\n>\n>Note that if the majority of people remain unconvinced, this idea\n>probably isn't worth very much in a pragmatic sense.\n\nMaybe not to you. But to those who stand on this base, He is \nprecious.\n\nLink\n\n", 'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 15\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:\n|> In article <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>\n|> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:\n|> >The "automobile system" kills non-driving passengers, not to mention\n|> >pedestrians. You need not drive or even use a car to be killed by one.\n|> \n|> Indeed, and it kills far more than a system of public transport would. I am\n|> therefore entirely in favour of banning private cars and replacing them with\n|> trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and so on.\n\nSeconded. I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get\nthose damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it\nwould be a lot more fun.\n\njon.\n', 'From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)\nSubject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions\nOrganization: University of Georgia, Athens\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:\n\n>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two\n>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat\n>denials. I\'ve never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are\n>indeed two different accounts of creation.\n\nThat is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of \na difficulty with the Bible. "were formed" can also be translated "had been\nformed" in chapter two without any problems. So the text does not demand\nthat there are two creation stories. \n\nLink Hudson.\n\n', 'From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com\nSubject: "Ex-Gays?" (follow-up)\nLines: 53\nReturn-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>\n\nI would like to apologize for the typos in the previous post.\n\nIn retrospect I would also like to quote another source: Douglas C.\nHaldeman from his 1991 book _Homosexuality_\n\nTHERAPY INEFFECTIVE\n\nRecently the founders of yet another prominent "ex-gay" ministry, Exodus\nInternational, denounced their conversion therapy procedures as ineffective.\nMichael Busse and Gary Cooper, cofounders of Exodus International and lovers\nfor 13 years, were involved with the organization from 1976 to 1979. The\nprogram was described by these men as "ineffective . . . not one person was\nhealed." They stated that the program often exacerbated already prominent\nfeelings of guilt and personal failure among the counselees; many were\ndriven to suicidal thoughts as a result of the failed "reparative therapy."\n\nThe previous article quoted in the last posting is from THE ADVOCATE, June\n30, 1992 called "The Ex-Ex-Gay" by Robert Pela.\n\nSome personal thoughts:\n\nIt is of no great astonishment that there is a concerted effort by a major\nportion of the Church to control and mandate change of a minority among\nits ranks. This was the momentum behind the Spanish Inquisition, only all\nthey required was a confession of faith (after much torture) and then, to\nsave their souls they would dispatch them to heaven through death. Even\nlater, the Bible was used vigorously to defend slavery, oppression and\nsegragation of African-Americans, even to the justification of lynchings.\nToday\'s scholars are just a bit more slick in their approach. The tool is\nstill coersion, but now it is mostly by means of brainwashing and mind\ncontrol, convincing people that they should see themselves as less than\nGod sees them, then maintaining a cultic hold on them until it is felt\nthier mind-conditioning is complete. Sure, no one is "physically" forced\nto stay in this "reparative therapy" but sheer social pressure is enough for\nmany to keep themselves in this new found bondage of self-hate.\n\nAs an abolitionist I advocate the abolishment of oppression and persecution\nagainst gays in all facets of civil life. A person should be judged by\nthe contibution, or non-contribution to the society in which they live,\nnot by some high-brow standard of conformity imposed by those who haven\';t\na clue what is in their heart.\n\nFor those who seek more information about Gays and groups that accept them\nplease contact your nearest chapter of PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians\nAnd Gays) who will be more than happy to assist you. This is a group of\npeople comprised of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, their parents and friends\nwho have formed a support group for help and understanding. Try talking to\na parent of a gay son or daughter and learn some "first-hand" real life and\nloving understanding. God\'s love and understanding for Gay people is no\nless abundant.\n\nThank you.\nPAX\n', 'From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)\nSubject: Re: Question for those with popular morality\nReply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England\nLines: 89\nNntp-Posting-Host: bangkok\n\nIn article Fo2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:\n\n<Moral Driver distinctions deleted>\n\n>>In this case, the Driver does not evolve but simply Is. There would\n>>probably not be any manifestation in an infant because the Moral\n>>Code has not been learnt yet (ie. the object upon which the Driver\n>>acts upon). \n>\n>Without manifestation, though, how can the Driver be detected? For\n>all purposes it seems not to exist until Moral Coding begins.\n>Actually, I agree with your notion of a Driver, except that I think\n>it\'s not moral but pre- (and super-)moral. It is, as I mentioned\n>earlier in this thread, a primal sense of connection, a pre- and\n>post-natal umbilical the awareness of which is expressed in a\n>partial, fragmented way that accomodates (and forms, in return) the\n>language and customs of a given culture. This halting, pidgin-english\n>expression is, I think, what we come to call \'morality\'. \n\nCompare the Driver to an urge such as Jealousy, where there is an urge\nand an "object". The jealousy does not technically exist until the object\nis apparent. However, the capacity to be jealous is presumably still there\neven though it is not detectable.\n\nYour description of the Unbilical took me three passes to understand (!) but\nI get the gist and I have to tentatively agree. I think our two definitions\ncan sit side by side without too much trouble, though. I haven\'t attempted to\ndefine the reason behind the Moral Driver (only hinted through the essence of\neach Moral). Your definition hints that animals are also capable of a\nsimilar morality - Simians have a similar Social Order to ourselves and it is\neasy to anthropomorphize with these animals. Is this possible or have I\nmisunderstood?\n\n>\n>>>>If my suggestion holds true then this is the area where work must be\n>>>>carried out to prevent a moral deterioration of Society,\n>\n>>>What kind of work, exactly?\n>\n>>Well, here you have asked the BIG question. [...]\n>>I have a slight suspicion that you were hoping I would say\n>>something really contentious in this reply (from your final question).\n>\n>No, not at all. I was just wondering if you subscribed to some\n>particular school of psycho-social thought and rehabilitation, and if\n>perhaps you had a plan. I\'d have been interested to hear it. \n>\n\nMy p.s. thoughts falls roughly in line with John Stuart Mill and\nhis writings on Utilitarianism. I have no particular plan (except to do\nmy bit - personal ethics AND social work). My opinion (for what it is worth)\nis that the Authority for each Moral must be increased somehow, and that this\nwill probably take several generations to be effective. I don\'t think that the\nlist of Morals has changed for Society significantly, though . The Authority element\nmay come from our authority figures and roles models (see Eric Berne and his\ntransactional analysis work [+ Mavis Klein] for references) and this is what\ngives rise to a deterioration of moral standards in the long term.\n\nI\'ve had some more thoughts on my definitions:\n\nI\'ve was thinking that I should add Moral Character to the list of definitions\nin order to get a dynamic version of the Moral Nature (ie. the interplay of\nthe Moral Code and associated Authorities). A suitable analogy might be a\ngraphic equaliser on a HiFi system - the Moral Nature being the set of\nfrequencies and the chosen \'amplitudes\', and the Moral Character being the\nspectrum over time.\n\nConscience is a little more difficult because I can\'t define it as the\nreasoning of a person between actions in the context of his Moral Nature\nbecause Conscience seems to cut in most of the time unbidden and often\nunwanted. I think Conscience is manifest when a decision is made at a given\ntime which compromises one\'s Moral Nature. My Conscience fits in more with\nFreud\'s SuperEgo (plus the Moral Driver) with the stimulous being the\nurges or Freud\'s Id. The reasoning that I mentioned before is Freud\'s Ego,\nI suppose. If the Moral Driver is part of the Id then the reason why\nConscience cuts in unbidden is partially explained. The question is "what\nprovides the stimulous to activate the Moral driver?". I think I need some\nmore time with this one.\n\nThat\'s about it for now!\n\nDavid.\n\n---\nOn religion:\n\n"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,\nAs they swam its clearness through.\n\n', 'From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: atheist?\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nLines: 50\n\nI3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n\n> In article <ii1i2B1w165w@mantis.co.uk>\n> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n> \n> (Deletion)\n> >\n> >My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much\n> >belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there\n> >care to comment? \n>[...]\n> Humans just come up with the idea of a spiritual parent. It is one\n> of the artifacts of human thought. The evidence for that is quite\n> overwhelming. And the information content of the conceived is vanishing.\n> \n> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and\n> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.\n> \n> The concept is useless, and I don\'t have to introduce new assumptions\n> in order to show that.\n> \n> No leap of faith required for me. Your mileage may vary.\n\nYes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don\'t believe gods exist", or\n"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\npointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.\n\nUnfortunately this is bound up in the definitions of strong and weak\natheism, at least according to the FAQ:\n\n# Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.\n# Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is\n# often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong\n# atheism".\n# \n# It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak\n# atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong\n# atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not\n# fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".\n\n(From mathew\'s "An Introduction to Atheism" version 1.2 last modified 5-Apr-93)\n\nShould the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?\nCan it?\n\n-- \nTony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk OR things\nlike tony%uk.co.mantis@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay OR (last resort) arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk\nPGP 2.2 public key available on request.\n\n', "From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nNntp-Posting-Host: digibd.digibd.com\nOrganization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN\nLines: 13\n\nbrian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:\n>In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:\n>>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me...\n\n>Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty. And to be honest as well, I\n>believe you have not asked my god to come to you. Why do I say this?\n\nBecause that would contradict your religious beliefs; therefore,\nyou feel more comfortable simply accusing his sincerity, so you will\nnot have to critically examine your religious beliefs.\n\n---\nMerlyn LeRoy\n", 'From: parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nKeywords: Success\nLines: 140\nNntp-Posting-Host: ccsua.ctstateu.edu\nOrganization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT\n\nI told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead. The FBI and\nthe BATF could not let a man like that live. He was a testimonial to their\nstupidity and lies. \n\nNow before everyone gets crazy with me, let me say that Koresh was crazy as \na bed bug, but out government was crazier...and they lied to us.\n\nThey told us compound had been under survaillance for quite some time. Yet, \nwhoever was watching the place failed to see that Koresh went jogging and into\ntown on a regular basis. Everyone in the area claimed to have seen him and \nwondered why they didn\'t pick him up then. There are two possible answers.\nFirst, they didn\'t see him. What kind of survaillance is that? Second, they\ndidn\'t care. They wanted a confrontation. They wanted publicity and they got\nit.\n\nAfter the first battle, they told us that they did not know he knew they were\ncoming. They also said it would have been foolish to go in knowing that.\nWell, we know now that they intercepted the informants call and went in anyway.\n\nDid they explore all of the possibilities for ending the seige? According to\nthem they did, but according to the Hartford Courant, the woman that raised\nKoresh (His Grandmother) was not allowed to go in and see him. \n The FBI agent who she spoke with was Bob Ricks and according to the paper he\nsaid:\n\n"A lot of people think if you just talk to them logically they will come out.\nHis grandmother raised Vernon Howell; (Koresh\'s Real name) she didn\'t raise\nDavid Koresh."\n\nSomeone who raises you and loves you does not speak to you strickly on a\nlogical level. There is also an emotional level on which they can reach you.\n\nHere\'s another one. All during this operation the FBI has been claiming that\nthey feared a mass suicide and that is one of the reasons that something must\nbe done. Now they claim they never thought he would do it?\n\nI knew they were going to do something when they started talking about how\nmuch money this was costing. That was the start of the "Justification" part\npart of the plan. That\'s when I knew it would come soon.\n\nBut, back to the plan. It is considered "Cruel and Unusal Punishment" to\nexecute criminals in the minds of many people, but look at what\'s acceptable.\n\nThey knew the parents (adults) had gas masks. They did not know, or were not\nsure, if the children had them. So the plan was to pour the gas into the \ncompound. The mothers, seeing what the gas was doing to their children were\nsupposed to run out and that would only leave the men to deal with.\n\nI spent two years in the army and like everyother veteran I went through CBR\n(Chemical, Biological Radiological) warfare training. Part of that training\nis going into a room filled with the same stuff that the children were\nsubjected to. To make the stuff really interesting the gas also has a chemical \nagent that irritates the skin. You think its on fire.\n\nI have no doubts the children would become hysterical. Its not the kind of\nthing you never want to do again. This was the plan, the final solution.\n\nWe waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran. We gave these\npeople 51 days. \n\nI stated on several occasions that there was absolutely nothing in this whole\nthing that the government could point to as a success. Well, FBI agent Ricks\nchanged my mind. Again a newclip from the Hartford Courant:\n\n"And while expressing regret at the loss of life, he suggested that the\noperation had been at least a modified success because not a single federal\nshot had been fired and not a single federal agent had been hurt."\n\nIt took 17 dead children to get us that new definition of success.\n\nOne more thought. The government claimed that they believed he had automatic\nweapons on the premises. \n \n HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!\n\nTHEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!\n\nStill, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.\nFor all of this my President takes full responsibility. What a guy!\nI hope he gets it.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn article <exuptr.1431.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:\n> In article <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:\n> \n>>Before you go absolving the BATF & FBI of all blame in this incident, you should\n>>probably be aware of two important facts.\n>>1. There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas. Tear gas is non-breathable\n>> remaining in it\'s presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually\n>> by siezures and death. Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people\n>> they exposed?? Any potential heart problems among the B-D\'s??\n> \n> No doubt it is dangerous stuff when concentrated.\n> \n>>2. Have you ever seen a tear gas canister?? Tear gas is produced by burning a\n>> chemical in the can. The fumes produced are tear gas. The canister has a \n>> warning printed on the side of it. "Contact with flamable material can result\n>> in fire." Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building \n>> they admited was a fire-trap??\n> \n> None. They used non-incindiary methods, which means they produced the gas \n> outside the building and pumped it in via the tanks.\n> \n> ---\n> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n> ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------\n> \n> ObDis: All opinions are specifically disclaimed. No one is responsible.\n> \n> Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems THX-1138\n> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don\'t let the .se fool you"\n', 'From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Who, me???\nLines: 41\n\nIn article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:\n>In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n>>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:\n>>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n>\n>>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or\n>>#not.\n>>\n>>O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any \n>>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics, \n>>meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in any \n>>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc. DES\n>>does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.\n>\n>This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"\n>seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which\n>accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.\n>It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input\n>is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..\n\nIf no-one looks at the results, or acknowledges their correctness, in what\nmeaningful sense can the chip be said to "work"?? Does flibozity exist?\nBy "flibozity", I mean a particular, extremely complex configuration of \nphysical phenomena, which no-one, absolutely NO-ONE cares about in the \nslightest. Does it exist, Eric?\n\nGetting back to the question of whether the DES chip "works", doesn\'t "work" \nmean something like "achieving the desired/expected effect"? Note the way \nintentionality subtly underlies that definition. Even if we take the \ndefinition as "expected", instead of "desired", can you deny that conformance \nto expectations is itself a value of sorts, namely the scientific values of \naccuracy-of-prediction and reproducibility-of-results?\n\nThe phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the\nprimary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --\nperceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in\nseeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human\nexperience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as \nmeasurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t- Kevin\n', "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: islamic genocide\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 21\n\n> O.K., so pick former Yugoslavia instead and say their problems are caused\n> by communism, it doesn't really matter. But I guess religious leaders are\n> calling for an end to that, too, so it can't be religiously motivated. This\n> despite the fact that the Christians carve crosses in dead Muslims chests.\n> Maybe they just want land. Maybe its something else they want. Maybe the\n> cross carvings are just accidental. I don't know. Just looks suspicious.\n\nMost likely the tragic situation in Bosnia is a combination of ethnical\nand religious motives, where religion is just one attribute that separates\nthe groups from each other.\n\nBut I must agree that the sad saga in Bosnia is a terrible example\nof a case where religion is not helping, instead it is used as a weapon\nagainst other humans. And my sympathies are mostly on the Bosnian side,\nit looks like the Serbs are the oppressors, willing to use even\nChristianity as a weapon against their former friends.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n", "From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 16\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1993Apr3.153552.4334@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>, acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:\n|> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes\n>\n> Well, Germany was hardly the ONLY country to discriminate against the \n> Jews, although it has the worst reputation because it did the best job \n> of expressing a general European dislike of them.  This should not turn \n> into a debate on antisemitism, but you should also point out that Luther's\n>  antiSemitism was based on religious grounds, while Hitler's was on racial \n> grounds, and Wagnmer's on aesthetic grounds.  Just blanketing the whole \n> group is poor analysis, even if they all are bigots.\n\nI find these to be intriguing remarks.   Could you give us a bit\nmore explanation here?   For example, which religion is anti-semitic,\nand which aesthetic?\n\njon.\n",
'From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 43\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.071814.27960@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:\n>> = <1qhn7m$a95@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer)\n>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n>[culled from a discussion on Christianity and objective morals]\n>\n>Question: Is there any effective difference between:\n>\n>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"\n>\n>and\n>\n>"Values are subjective?"\n>\n>I don\'t see any.\n>\n\n\n\nIs there any difference in saying \n\n"Absolute Truth exists, but some people think its a lie"\n\nand\n\n"Truth is relative" ?\n\nI think there is: in both examples, the first statement is a\nfundamental disagreement between at least two people; the \nsecond statement is agreed upon by all.\n\nTo put it another way, someone who says objective values exist\ndoes not agree that values are subjective.\n\n-jim halat\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n', 'From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)\nSubject: To Rob Lanphier\nOrganization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.\nLines: 82\n\nDear Rob,\n\n>When I read Brian K.\'s postings, I find someone who is honestly seeking\n>the truth. When I read your response here, I see condescension. When you\n>reply to a post, reply to the post you quote. This statement undermines\n>any good points you might have had (it was enough to make me stop reading).\n\nSometimes I do come across condesending, and I am sorry I come across that\nway at times. Thank you for the reproach, I really do appreciate it. I\'ll\ntry to get better.\n\nRob, at the same time, I have also learned that some people respond to the gentle\napproach while others respond only at a harsh rebuke. Brian K., so far,\nonly responds to the latter. And I am glad he responds at all. In both\ncases of approach, my intention is to be loving. I am making no excuse\nfor myself if I am coming across condesending. I apologize for that.\n\nRob, sometimes Brian K. comes across as honest. I know this. But Brian K. \nvasillates back and forth. One post looks honest; the next is\nan excuse. Now he wants me to explain the universe in 50 words or less. \nI think Brian Kendig is really trying but he is too comfortable with\nhis set of excuses. \n\nI just want Brian K. to be honest with himself. If he really wants\nto know, he will ask questions and stop asserting irrelevant excuses\nwhich have nothing to do with my God. I wish Brian would read the\nBible for himself and come to his own decisions without being\nsidetracked with the temptation to mock God.\n\nFrom my perspective Rob, when I look at Brian Kendig, I see a man\nstanding out in the middle of a highway. Off into the distance I \nsee a Mack truck heading right for him, but Brian K. is faced away\nfrom the oncoming truck. He doesn\'t see it. Here\'s is how I see\nthe dialog:\n\n\nMe: "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over." \n\nBK: "There is no truck."\n\nMe: "Turn around at look."\n\nBK: "No."\n\nMe: "Look! You will be healthier if you do take a look at\n the oncoming truck."\n\nBK: "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."\n\nMe: "Turn around or you will run over."\n\nBK: "No. I won\'t because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."\n\nMe: "You blind fool! Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing\n to lose if you look. But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."\n I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.\n\nBK: "It is my life to lose. I rather not look.\n Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."\n And by the way, I really have an open mind."\n\n\nSo is my motivation to belittle Brian, or to love Brian the best I know how? \n\nI do not wish to single Brian Kendig out. Because millions if not\nbillions of people fall into the same category. Perhaps all people\nfall have fallen into this category at one time in their lives. I have.\nI can now see the truck behind Brian.\n\nMy hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the\ntruck coming towards him. My hope is that Brian will want to step out\nof the way. My fear, though, is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself\nto the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over. But if\nhe so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that\nto change his mind. For it is his choice. But at this very moment,\nBrian hasn\'t gotten even that far. He is still at the point where he\ndoes not want to look. Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his\nhead will not turn around to see the entire picture. So far he is\nsatisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. \n\nThank you again Rob for your reproach. I really do appreciate it. (My\nwife tells me the same thing at times.) :-) I will try to do better.\n', 'From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Decision Support Inc.\nLines: 72\nNNTP-Posting-Host: bozo.dsinc.com\n\nI apologize for the long delay in getting a response to this posted.\nI\'ve been working reduced hours the past couple of weeks because I had\na son born (the day after Umar\'s article was posted, btw). I did\nrespond within a couple of days, but it turns out that a a\ncoincidental news software rearrangement caused postings from this\nsite to silently disappear rather than going out into the world. This\nis a revision of that original response.\n\nIn article <C52q47.7Ct@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:\n>In article <1ps98fINNm2u@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:\n>>Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the\n>>nature of the novel could think such a thing.\n\n[this was in response to the claim that "Rushdie made false statements\nabout the life of Mohammed", with the disclaimer "(fiction, I know,\nbut where is the line between fact and fiction?) - I stand by this\ndistinction between fiction and "false statements"]\n\n>>However, it\'s not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for\n>>what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is\n>>contained in that book. I have yet to find *one single muslim* who\n>>has convinced me that they have read the book. Some have initially\n>>claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book\n>>than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made\n>>factual misstatements about events in the book.\n>\n>You keep saying things like this. Then, you accuse people like me of\n>making ad hominem arguments. I repeat, as I have said in previous\n>postings on AA: I *have* read TSV from cover to cover\n\nI had not seen that claim, or I might have been less sweeping. You\nhave made what I consider factual misstatements about events in the\nbook, which I have raised in the past, in the "ISLAM: a clearer view"\nthread as well as the root of the "Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]"\nthread. My statement was not that you had not read the book, but that\nyou had not convinced me that you [inter alia] had. As I said before,\nif you want to defend your position, then produce evidence, and\nrespond to the evidence I have posted; so far you have not. Of\ncourse, my statement was not directly aimed at you, but broadly at a\nnumber of Muslim posters who have repeated propaganda about the book,\nindicating that they haven\'t read it, and narrowly at Gregg Jaeger,\nwho subsequently admitted that he hadn\'t in fact read the book,\nvindicating my skepticism in at least that one case.\n\nSo far, the only things I have to go on regarding your own case are a)\nthe statements you made concerning the book in the "a clearer view"\nposting, which I have challenged (not interpretation, but statements\nof fact, for instance "Rushdie depicts the women of the most\nrespected family in all of Islam as whores"), and b) your claim (which\nI had not seen before this) that you have indeed read it cover to\ncover. I am willing to try to resolve this down to a disagreement on\ncritical interpretation, but you\'ll have to support your end, by\nresponding to my criticism. I have no doubt as to the ability of a\nparticular Muslim to go through this book with a highlighter finding\npassages to take personal offense at, but you have upheld the view\nthat "TSV *is* intended as an attack on Islam and upon Muslims". This\nview must be defended by more than mere assertion, if you want anyone\nto take it seriously.\n\n>I am trying very hard to be amicable and rational. \n\nAnd I appreciate it, but welcome to the club. I am defending my\nhonest opinion that this book should not be construed as a calculated\n(or otherwise) insulting attack on Islam, and the parallel opinion\nthat most of the criticism of the book I have seen is baseless\npropaganda. I have supported my statements and critical\ninterpretationa with in-context quotes from the book and Rushdie\'s\nessays, which is more than my correspondents have done. Of course,\nyou are more than welcome to do so.\n-- \nJim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC\nThese are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.\n', ' sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nFrom: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\n <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> \n <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <30071@ursa.bear.com>\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\nLines: 22\n\nhalat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:\n\n>>I think an objective morality does exist, but that most flavors of morality\n>>are only approximations to it. Once again, a natural or objective morality\n>>is fairly easily defined, as long as you have a goal in mind--that is, what\n>>is the purpose of this morality.\n>Maybe I\'m not quite getting what you mean by this, but I think objective \n>morality is an oxymoron. By definition, it seems, any _goal_ oriented \n>issue like this is subjective by nature. I don\'t get how you\'re using\n>the word objective.\n\nBut, the goal need not be a subjective one. For instance, the goal of\nnatural morality is the propogation of a species, perhaps. It wasn\'t\nreally until the more intelligent animals came along that some revisions\nto this were necessary. Intelligent animals have different needs than\nthe others, and hence a morality suited to them must be a bit more\ncomplicated than "the law of the jungle." I don\'t think that\nself-actualization is so subjective as you might think. And, by\nobjectivity, I am assuming that the ideals of any such system could be\ncarried out completely.\n\nkeith\n', 'From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)\nSubject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"\nOrganization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque\nLines: 30\nNNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:\n>Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was\n>established? Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to\n>provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their\n>anti-societal political views.\n\nOk, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...\npart of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and\nrelated topics. This is a policy discussion, and involves related \ntopics. this is not a "fringe" group discussion. obviously, it \nengenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand. \nWether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion, \nand yours alone, don\'t try to make it seem otherwise. \nIf you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file. \nIf you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing \nfull well the implications that apply.\nI know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when \ni have the wish to have input. I for one am tired of people trying to \nsay that this is not a matter significant for this group! It is, and \nquite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.\n\n\n****************************************************************\n* Dominick V. Zurlo * "If the world\'s an *\n* WWW * oyster, why am I *\n* Eagle Scout \'87 * allergic to Mollusks?" *\n* blacklisted \'88 * *\n****************************************************************\n\n\n', "Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nFrom: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nOrganization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.\nLines: 47\n\nIn article <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:\n>In article <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>>I would say that one innocent person killed is in some sense\n>>as bad as many.   We certainly feel that way when we punish\n>>someone for a single murder.\n>>Now if we reform system X, by reducing the number of deaths\n>>by one, we produce system XX.    I'd say we should not go back\n>>to system X, even though by doing so we would re-introduce only \n>>a single extra death.\n>\n>Bob seems to think that one is as bad as many in a sense somewhat stronger than\n>the one you indicate.\n>--\n\n  Yes, I do.  \n\n  My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to\n  kill people.  That is it's primary (and I would argue only)\n  purpose.  To continue to kill people by a practice that has\n  almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing\n  innocents, is unconscionable.\n\n  At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our\n  transportation system are based on their merits to society, not\n  their detriments.  We are willing to accept a few lost innocent\n  lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued\n  existence of these systems.  One has to stretch the evidence and\n  the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.\n\n  Just in case I wasn't clear again:  We maintain a capital\n  punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with\n  no net positive gain.  Why?\n\n  Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond\n  that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life\n  at all.  But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are\n  tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.\n\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n",
"From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nSubject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!\nReply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)\nLines: 38\n\n>In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes:\n>>Atheists are not\n>>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a\n>>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.\n\n\nI guess that's why scientists probably aren't mentioned either.  Or\nstock brokers.  Or television repairmen.  \n\nIt's precious to know just how deep the brainwashing from childhood\n( that it takes to progress a religion ) cleans away a very substantial\npart of the reasoning neurons.\n\nBut don't mind me;  I don't exist.\n\n-jim halat\n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n                                                                            \n\n",
'From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah\'s Witnesses\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 37\n\nsuopanki@stekt.oulu.fi writes:\n> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:\n> :> God is eternal.    [A = B]\n> :> Jesus is God.      [C = A]\n> :> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]\n> \n> :> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of\n> :> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore\n> :> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.\n> \n> Everything isn\'t always so logical....\n> \n> Mercedes is a car.\n> That girl is Mercedes.\n> Therefore, that girl is a car?\n\nUnfortunately your phrasing is ambiguous.  Re-writing more carefully, we have\n(at least) two possibilities.  The first:\n\nThings called "Mercedes" are cars\nThat girl is called "Mercedes"\nTherefore that girl is a car\n\nThat is entirely valid as a piece of logical deduction.  It is not sound,\nbecause the first statement is false.  Similarly, I would hold that Jim\'s\nexample is valid but not sound.\n\nAnother possible interpretation of what you wrote is:\n\nThere exists at least one car called "Mercedes"\nThat girl is called "Mercedes"\nTherefore that girl is a car\n\n-- which isn\'t valid.\n\n\nmathew\n',
"From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk\nSubject: Re: free moral agency\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England\nLines: 11\n\n: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all\n: humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who\n: were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E\n: didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans?\n\nGenesis 5:4\n\nand the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and\nhe begat sons and daughters:\n\nFelicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart\n",
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 93\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qlettINN8oi@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >>>Explain to me\n|> >>>how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen.\n|> >>For example, if it were instinctive not to murder...\n|> >\n|> >Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there\n|> >would be nothing voluntary about it.\n|> \n|> See, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant\n|> if it is "voluntary."  Why do you think this?\n\nIf you force me to do something, am I morally responsible for it?\n\n|> \n|> And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.\n\nWell, make up your mind.    Is it to be "instinctive not to murder"\nor not?\n\n|> \n|> >>So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other\n|> >>beings mimics theirs?\n|> >\n|> >You are starting to get the point.  Mimicry is not necessarily the \n|> >same as the action being imitated.  A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly" \n|> >isn\'t necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.\n|> \n|> You are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think.\n|> Let\'s try this:  is it "good" that animals of the same species\n|> don\'t kill each other.  Or, do you think this is right? \n\nIt\'s not even correct.    Animals of the same species do kill\none another.\n\n|> \n|> Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do\n|> is either right nor wrong?\n\nSigh.   I wonder how many times we have been round this loop.\n\nI think that instinctive bahaviour has no moral significance.\nI am quite prepared to believe that higher animals, such as\nprimates, have the beginnings of a moral sense, since they seem\nto exhibit self-awareness.\n\n|> \n|> \n|> >>Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but \n|> >>they don\'t.\n|> >\n|> >They do.  I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly\n|> >this, but you seem to have a very short memory.\n|> \n|> Those weren\'t arbitrary killings.  They were slayings related to some \n|> sort of mating ritual or whatnot.\n\nSo what?     Are you trying to say that some killing in animals\nhas a moral significance and some does not?   Is this your\nnatural morality>\n\n\n|> \n|> >>Are you trying to say that this isn\'t an act of morality because\n|> >>most animals aren\'t intelligent enough to think like we do?\n|> >\n|> >I\'m saying:\n|> >\t"There must be the possibility that the organism - it\'s not \n|> >\tjust people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."\n|> >\n|> >It\'s right there in the posting you are replying to.\n|> \n|> Yes it was, but I still don\'t understand your distinctions.  What\n|> do you mean by "consider?"  Can a small child be moral?  How about\n|> a gorilla?  A dolphin?  A platypus?  Where is the line drawn?  Does\n|> the being need to be self aware?\n\nAre you blind?   What do you think that this sentence means?\n\n\t"There must be the possibility that the organism - it\'s not \n\tjust people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."\n\nWhat would that imply?\n\n|> \n|> What *do* you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of\n|> the same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other?  Don\'t\n|> you find the fact that they don\'t at all significant?\n\nI find the fact that they do to be significant. \n\njon.\n',
'From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)\nSubject: Re: Yeah, Right\nOrganization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor\nLines: 49\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: agar.engin.umich.edu\n\nIn article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n>Benedikt Rosenau writes:\n>\n>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?\n>\n>If you\'re talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,\n>it\'s obviously a risk one takes.\n\n Ah, now here is the core question. Let me suggest a scenario.\n\n We will grant that a God exists, and uses revelation to communicate\nwith humans. (Said revelation taking the form (paraphrased from your\nown words) \'This infinitely powerful deity grabs some poor schmuck,\nmakes him take dictation, and then hides away for a few hundred years\'.)\n Now, there exists a human who has not personally experienced a\nrevelation. This person observes that not only do these revelations seem\nto contain elements that contradict rather strongly aspects of the\nobserved world (which is all this person has ever seen), but there are\nmany mutually contradictory claims of revelation.\n\n Now, based on this, can this person be blamed for concluding, absent\na personal revelation of their own, that there is almost certainly\nnothing to this \'revelation\' thing?\n\n>I\'m not an objectivist, so I\'m not particularly impressed with problems of\n>conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of\n>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary\n>experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from\n>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the\n>perspective of what\'s being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).\n>\n>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is\n>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.\n\n Absent this better language, and absent observations in support of the\nclaims of revelation, can one be blamed for doubting the whole thing?\n\n Here is what I am driving at: I have thought a long time about this. I\nhave come to the honest conclusion that if there is a deity, it is\nnothing like the ones proposed by any religion that I am familiar with.\n Now, if there does happen to be, say, a Christian God, will I be held\naccountable for such an honest mistake?\n\n Sincerely,\n\n Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu\n\n "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the\nstars!" - Robert A. Heinlein\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 62\n\nI was curious to check out how many San Jose Mercury News mentioned\nTyre (1990-92). Here's the outcome from the research (condenced versions,\ncopyright San Jose Mercury news):\n\n---\n  Bombings in the two largest cities in southern Lebanon killed 11 people\nand \nwounded 80 others. A car bomb blew up in Tyre, killing 10 people and\nwounding \n75. A man was killed and five others seriously wounded in an explosion in \nNabatiye.\n---\n  An Israeli navy patrol boat attacked and sank a rubber guerrilla boat off\n\nsouthern Lebanon early today, killing the two men aboard, the army command \nsaid.\n  \n     It said in a communique that a Dvora patrol boat opened fire on the \nmotorized rubber dinghy north of Tyre after identifying it as hostile. The\narmy \nsaid no one on the Israeli boat was injured. The affiliation of the slain \nguerrillas was not immediately known.\n---\n  Rival factions of the guerrilla group led by terrorist mastermind Abu\nNidal \nbattled Sunday in Tyre, Lebanon, with machine guns and rocket-propelled \ngrenades, killing at least four people and wounding 15, police said.\n---\n Lebanon's mainstream Shiite Muslim militia said Thursday that it had \nuncovered a network of tunnels in a southern Lebanese village where it said\npro-\nIranian kidnappers had held Western hostages.\n  \n     Officials of the militia, Amal, led local journalists through the\ncatacomb-\nlike alleys and showed them two cells with iron doors at the village, \nKawthariyet al Siyad, near Tyre, the ancient port city, about 40 miles\nsouth of \nBeirut.\n  \n     The officials said they were certain that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William\nR. \nHiggins was detained there shortly after he was seized by gunmen on a road \noutside Tyre in February 1988.\n--------------\n...anyway, I counted 20 articles during these 3 years of reporting. I also\nfound out the possible reason why the numbers for the inhabitants of the\ncity is defined between 14000 and 24000. It seems that Tyre is one of the\nplaces\nwhere people from Libanon flee to during more extensive bombings, so\nthere's\na constant flow of refugees entering and leaving Tyre (articles mentioned\nthousands of people entering and leaving this place).\n\nI counted 0 articles for my home town, Kristinestad, so from now I will\nconsider this place to be a fishing village :-).\n\nCheers,\nKent\n\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo\nLines: 11\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:\n>P.S. I\'m not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also\n>applies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella\n>of the "fasad" ruling.\n\nPlease define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again.\n\n/---- John David Munch ------------------ jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu ----\\\n|...." the heart can change, be full of hate, or love. If people are allowed|\n|to base their lives through their hearts, anything can happen. A dangerous |\n|situation, in my opinion." -Bobby Mozumder describing problems with atheism|\n',
'From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG\nLines: 28\nNNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:\n|In <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:\n|> In article <30114@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:\n|\n|> #I\'m one of those people who does not know what the word objective means \n|> #when put next to the word morality. I assume its an idiom and cannot\n|> #be defined by its separate terms.\n|> #\n|> #Give it a try.\n|> \n|> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.\n|\n| "And these objective values are ... ?"\n|Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate.\n\nI\'ll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base\nthis on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly\nof their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),\nalmost all would want to complain. Therefore I take it that to assert or\nbelieve that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see\nthat it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on\na rainy day. I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it\nit is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values\nsuch as this exist.\n\n-- \nFrank O\'Dwyer \'I\'m not hatching That\'\nodwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon\n', 'From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)\nSubject: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars\nOrganization: The Portal System (TM)\nDistribution: world\n <1993Apr14.130150.28931@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>\nLines: 68\n\n93!04.16 e.v. After the Glorious Eve of Taxation\n\nDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.\nThe word of Sin is Restriction.\n\n\n"To all whom it may concern -\n\n...\n\n"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible\norganization of such men and women, who having themselves found\nthe path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the\nburning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,\nand to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be\nguided.\n\n"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.\nhave been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of\nthe civilised world, all following some line of occult study,\nyet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics\nwhich shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover\nThe Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the\nOne Hermetic Truth.\n\n"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient\nOrder of Oriental Templars. Ordo Templi Orientis. Otherwise:\nThe Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.\n\n"It is a Modern School of Magic. And, like the ancient schools\nof magic, it derived its knowledge from the East. This Knowledge\nwas never its possessors.[sic] It was recorded in symbol, parable \nand allegory, requiring a Key for its interpretation....\n\n"This key can be placed within the reach of all those who... apply\nfor membership to the Oriental Templars (O.T.O.). \n\n"The O.T.O.... is a body of Initiates in whose hands are\nconcentrated the secret knowledge of all Oriental Orders and of all\nexisting Masonic Degrees....\n\n"The O.T.O., although an Academia Masonica, is not a Masonic Body,\nso far as the Craft degrees are concerned in the sense in which that\nexpression is usually understood in England, and therefore in no way\nconflicts with or infringes the just priveleges of the United Lodge\nof England. English Master Masons in good standing, by arrangement,\non affiliation, are admitted at reduced charges. Members of the IX\ndegree become part-proprietors of the Estates and Goods of the Order.\nFor further information see the publications of the O.T.O., and the\nsynopsis of the degrees of the O.T.O."\n\n\'Constitution of the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars,\n Ordo Templi Orientis\', \n\nby Frater Superior Merlin Peregrinus X Degree, \nPast Grand Master Albert Karl Theodor Reuss\n\n\nTaken from _Equinox III: 10_, \nEdited by Frater Superior Rex Summus Sanctissimus,\nUnited States Caliph of Ordo Templi Orientis\n\n\nInvoke me under my stars. Love is the law, love under will.\n\nI am I!\n\nFrater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) (CCCXXXIII) \n', 'From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)\nSubject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)\nNntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu\nReply-To: keegan@hermes.acm.rpi.edu\nOrganization: T.S.A.K.C.\nLines: 15\n\nnyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:\n\n->I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post\n->by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday. The first was made into the\n->title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"\n->and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread\n->"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"\n\nif you\'re so insecure about people reading your posts\nthat you feel the need to write new posts announcing\nwhat you wrote in old, posts, why bother? accept it\nPHoney, you\'re a laughingstock.\n\n\n\n', 'From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)\nSubject: Re: New newsgroup: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?\nNntp-Posting-Host: rintintin.colorado.edu\nOrganization: University of Colorado, Boulder\nLines: 68\n\n\nMr. Esam Abdel-Rahem writes:\n\n>I urge you all to vote NO to the formation of the news group \'\'AHMADYA.ISLAM\'\'.\n>If they want to have their own group, the word ISLAM shouldnot be attached to \n>the name of such group. We don\'t consider them as Muslims.\n\n\nDr. Tahir Ijaz comments on Esam Abdel-Rahem\'s statement:\n\n>But the problem is We consider ourself to be Muslims, even though you don\'t.\n>Luckily, faith is determined by what one believes and is a personal matter.\n>You cannot declare the faith of someone else.\n\n\nMr. Jawad Ali then comments on Tahir Ijaz\'s statement:\n\n>You are not considering the consequences of your argument. The converse\n>would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be\n>Muslims. Who one considers to be one\'s co-believer is also a personal\n>matter. It would be just as wrong to tell the Muslims who should be\n>included in their self-defination.\n\n\nThe argument by Jawad Ali is funny, He writes:\n"The converse would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider\nAhmadies to be Muslims"\n\nWhich is a wrong statement. In the light of Dr. Ijaz\'s statement, the\nabove statement should be corrected:\n".......................................is that (some) non-Ahmadi Muslims\ndon\'t consider Ahmadi-Muslims as Muslims"\n\nSo, the problem does not get solved:-) Who is a muslims and who is not?\nHumans cannot decide. Humans may not declare others faiths. Its that \nsimple. I don\'t understand, why the mere use of the word "ISLAM" is\nbecomming such a big issue. I have seen numorous postings on the net\non this subject, and all they say, "No, NO, you cannot use ISLAM as \nthe name of your newsgroup". ?? \n\nI haven\'t seen a single posting stating what right do they have in declaring\nthe name of other\'s faiths? Who gives them this authority? Quran? or\nHadith? or something else? I want to know this! \n\nJust a small reminder to all my Muslim Brothers, Did _EVER_ the \nHoly Prophet of Islam (Muhammad PBUH), say to anyone who called\nhimself a Muslim:\n\nNo, You are not a Muslim ! ???????\n\nNEVER! I challenge all my Muslim brothers to produce a single \nsuch evidence from the history of Islam!\n\nHence, if the Prophet Muhammad could never do that to anyone, how\ncould the Muslims, Mullahs or even Governments of today do\nit to anyone. Do you consider yourself above the Holy Prophet \nMuhammad (PBUH) ?? \n\n\nSincerely,\nNabeel.\n\n\n-- \n||\\\\ || //\\\\ ||\\\\ ******************* (Note: \n|| \\\\ || //==\\\\ ||// * LOVE FOR ALL * views \n|| \\\\||abeel // \\\\. ||\\\\ana * HATRED FOR NONE * are \n[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu] ******************* mine) \n', 'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> \ndlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:\n>... other good stuff deleted ...\n>You can worship every day of the week. The issue is not whether\n>Christians are at fault for going to church on Sunday or for not going to\n>church on Saturday. Attending a church service does not mean you have\n>recognized the holiness of that day (my apologies to Paul Hudson). The\n>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the\n ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?" Please\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>note that the commandment does not command you to go to church, only to\n>keep it holy unto the Lord by refraining from doing on it what only serves\n>to give you pleasure and satisfaction.\n\nWhen are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? \n\nIn paraphrase: \n\nOn what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they\nare above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not \naccountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion \nin Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is\nthe pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?\n', "From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nSubject: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)\nLines: 22\nReply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu\n\n\nKent:\n\n You say that\n\n>There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,\n ^^^^^^^^^\n>most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations\n>from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article\n Please don't! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations\n>and their conceptual world view systems.\n\n Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have\nprobably spent more time than you doing the same. \n\n None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the\ncase. \n\nStudy Harder,\n\nTony\n", 'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 72\n\nIn <1pkqe2INN54n@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:\n\n>In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:\n>[deleted, to get to the point:]\n>> \n>> Therefore, in a nutshell, my opinion is that pre-marital sex makes the\n>> likelihood of extra-marital sex more probable. Furthermore,\n>> in my opinion, extra-marital sex helps break down partnerships and leads\n>> to greater divorce rates. This in turn, in my opinion, creates trauma\n>> and a less stable environment for children, who are then, in my opinion,\n>> more likely to grow up with psychological problems such as depression,\n>> etc. And thus, sex outside of marriage is, in the long run, harmful to\n>> society.\n\n>I think that you are drawing links where there are none - having sex before\n>marriage has nothing to do with adultery once committed into marriage. The\n>issue as I see it is more of how committed you are to not foisting pain on\n>your spouse, and how confident you are about yourself. \n>\tIn addition, what someone does within their marriage is their own \n>business, not mine, and not yours. I have witnessed strong relationships\n>that incorporate extra-marital sex. \n>\tI would agree with your assertion about children - children should not be witness to such confusing relationships - if adultery is stressful to \n>adults, which I assume it in general is, how can we expect children to \n>understand it?\n>> \n>> Where is the evidence for my opinions? At the moment, there are just\n>> generalities I can cite. For example, I read that in the 20th century,\n>> the percentage of youth (and people in general) who suffer from\n>> depression has been steadily climbing in Western societies (probably\n>> what I was reading referred particularly to the USA). Similarly, one\n>> can detect a trend towards greater occurrence of sex outside of marriage\n>> in this century in Western societies -- particularly with the "sexual\n>> revolution" of the 60\'s, but even before that I think (otherwise the\n>> "sexual revolution" of the 60\'s would not have been possible),\n>> particularly with the gradual weakening of Christianity and consequently\n>> Christian moral teachings against sex outside of marriage. I propose\n>> that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society\n>> (and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are\n>> linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former. I cannot\n>> provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis\n>> seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.\n\n>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards\n>depression? You can\'t just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation \n>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and \n>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis. \n>At best it\'s a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people \n>experience. \n\nMy argument is mainly a proposal of what I think is a plausible argument\nagainst extra-marital sex -- one which I personally believe has some\ntruth. My main purpose for posting it here is to show that a\n_plausible_ argument can be made against extra-marital sex. At this\nstage I am not saying that this particular viewpoint is proven or\nanything like that, just that it is plausible. To try to convince you\nall of this particular point of view, I would probably have to do a lot\nof work researching what has been done in this field, etc., in order to\ngather further evidence, which I simply do not have time to do now. \n\nAlso note that I said that I think extra-marital sex is "a prime cause"\n(in my opinion) of the generally greater levels of psychological\nproblems, especially depression, in Western societies. I am not saying\nit is "the prime cause" or "the only cause", just "a prime cause" --\ni.e. one of the significant contributions to this trend. I think when\nyou say you think my view is simplistic, you have forgotten this -- I\nadmit that there are probably other factors, but I do think that\nextra-marital sex (and, IMO, subsequent destabilization of the family)\nis a significant factor in the rise in psychological problems like\ndepression in Western society this century.\n \n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au \n', 'From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu\nSubject: Idle questions for fellow atheists\nOrganization: Macalester College\nLines: 26\n\n\nI wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world\nif atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population. \nIt is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is\ndown so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as\nwell post something new myself.\n\nAlso, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a\nhigher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The\ntypical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the\nsame inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the\nother, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn\nsomewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,\nthan the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it\nexpresses its own selfishness.\n\nIdle thoughts...\n\n\nAdam\n\n********************************************************************************\n* Adam John Cooper\t\t"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *\n*\t\t\t\t who thought themselves good simply because *\n* acooper@macalstr.edu\t\t\t\tthey had no claws."\t *\n********************************************************************************\n', 'Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah\'s Witnesses (good grief!)\nFrom: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <66018@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n\n>The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the\n>true position of reason in this group.\n\n\tI agree, we spend too much energy on the nonexistance of God.\n\n--\n\n\n "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill. \n They do what god tells them to do. "\n\n S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) \n', 'From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)\nSubject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick\nOrganization: Home Office in Vienna, Austria\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 28\n\nkosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:\n\n> I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford\'s novel "Sarum" a scene in\n> which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a\n> secret ceremony involving a bull. He stands naked in a pit covered\n> with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on\n> the scaffolding. They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the\n> worshipper in the pit with blood. This is supposedly some sort of\n> rite of passage for members of the bull cult. I wonder if this is\n> related to the Mithras cult?\n\nYes, this is certainly one of the traditional ideas about the Mithraic\ncult (although not the only one.) It had many elements that seem\nto have been borrowed by Catholicism (e.g. the Mass, communion, the\nsharing of a sacred meal, consecration of bread and wine, etc.)\n\nFor quite an amusing novel that uses this same idea, check out:\n\nThe Covenant of the Flame\nby David Morrell.\n\nIt has some quite interesting occult bits, and lots of killing.\nI won\'t spoil it by revealing the ending, but I will say that it\nis relevant to Mithraism.\n--\npaul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)\nHome Office in Vienna, Austria\n** If you read news with rn or trn, ask me about EEP! the .newsrc editor!\n', 'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 19\nDistribution: world,public\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <115847@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n\n>Well, in 1984 one was not allowed to leave the domain of authority. One\n>_is_ free to leave Islam. If one regards Islamic law as a curse one\n>should consider leaving Islam.\n\n\tThe only way out seems to be death.\n\n--- \n\n " I\'d Cheat on Hillary Too."\n\n John Laws\n Local GOP Reprehensitive\n Extolling "Traditional Family Values."\n\n\n\n\n', 'Nntp-Posting-Host: dougn.byu.edu\nLines: 24\nFrom:$stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann)\nSubject: Re: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?\nOrganization: BYU\n\nIn article <C5rr9M.LJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:\n>From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\n>Subject: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?\n>Date: 20 Apr 93 06:29:00 GMT\n>\n>            IS THE MORMON CHURCH CHRIST\'S TRUE CHURCH?\n>\n[...lots of stuff about intellectual errors deleted...]\n\nThis is cute, but I see no statement telling me why your church is the true \nchurch. I do presume that you know or at least believe that yours is true. \nAttempting to ream my faith without replacing it with something "better" is \na real good way to loose a person completely from Christ.\n\nThis is the greatest reason I see that these attacks are not motivated by \nlove. They only seek to destroy there is no building or replacing of belief. \nThis is not something Christ did. He guided and instructed He didn\'t \nseek to destroy the faith He found, He redirected it. \n\nThis is what I see when people say they "love" <insert favorite group here>. \nAnd I have to laugh at the irony. \n\nPlease excuse the scarcasm but it was nice to say it. \nOh, BTW Robert don\'t take this personally, your post was merely convinent.\n',
"From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science\nLines: 29\nDistribution: world\n\t<sandvik-170493104312@sandvik-kent.apple.com>\n\t<1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>\nNNTP-Posting-Host: bailey.cpac.washington.edu\nIn-reply-to: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 17 Apr 1993 20:31:11 GMT\n\n\nIn article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu \n(Tony Alicea) writes:\n\n>   Kent:\n\n>\tYou say that\n\n>   >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,\n\t\t\t  ^^^^^^^^^\n>   >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations\n>   >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article\n>\t\t\t    Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\nhuh? it might be interesting. he is relating the story as I have heard\nit, btw.\n\n>   >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations\n>   >and their conceptual world view systems.\n\n>\tName just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have\n>   probably spent more time than you doing the same. \n\n>\tNone of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the\n>   case. \n\nhuh? care to back that up?\n\njosh\n",
'From: edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.)\nSubject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible\nOrganization: Writer\nLines: 28\nX-Mailer: TMail version 1.13\n\nIn <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:\n> \n> [irrelevant inserts from previous postings deleted]\n> \n> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in\n> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic\n> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind\'s relationship\n> to nature and to the supernatural. ...  legends are ususally defined as\n> tales concerning other times and places that do not give the same extensive\n> emphasis to supernatural themes. Legends, more often than myths, are retold\n> purely as entertainment." from Peter B. Hammand\'s .An introduction to\n> Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion page 387. This makes\n> the Bible a Fibber Magee\'s closet, over stuffed with a little bit of every\n> thing gleened by a wandering people.\n> Pegasus \n\n     Now doesn\'t this sound a lot like the "colorful (or otherwise) story \n     from antiquity that somehow tries to (or does) explain natural pheno-\n     mena"?  I think I hear what you\'re saying, but I\'m not convinced that\n     I know what you mean.  The possibility exists that what _looks_ like\n     "myth" on the surface may be after all much more than "just" a story.\n     \n      \n\n     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n     ed mahood, jr.  < edmahood@infoserv.com >\n',
"From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 19\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\nmam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:\n\n>Let me see if I understand what you are saying.  In order to talk \n>knowledgeably about religion, Atheists must first have been so immersed \n>in a religion that only the rare individual could have left.  \n\nNo, you don't understand.  I said that I don't think people can discuss\nthe subjective merits of religion objectively.  This should be obvious.\nPeople here have said that everyone would be better off without religion,\nbut this almost certainly isn't true.\n\n>>But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?\n>The motto is a tool.  Let's try to take away the tool.\n\nBut, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder.\nShould both be taken away?  That is to say, I don't think motto misuse\nwarrants its removal.  At least not in this case.\n\nkeith\n",
'From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God\'s Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nOrganization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615\nLines: 20\n\nstarowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:\n> : If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,\n> : do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been\n> : reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not\n> : on the Endangered Species List.  \n> \n> How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)\n\nJudging from postings I\'ve read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet\nBBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially\nif he runs into me in a dark alley.\n                                   \n                                            A.Lizard\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nA.Lizard Internet Addresses:\nalizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)\nPacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)\nalizard@gentoo.com (backup)\nPGP2.2 public key available on request\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith\nAllan Schneider) wrote:\n> Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it\n> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't\n> adversely affect your own, I guess).\n\nHehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you \nthat this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such\ntranscendental game systems...\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nReply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu\nOrganization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development\nLines: 26\n\nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n\n>In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca\n>(Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n>> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call\n>> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD\'s contradicted scripture\n>> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps\n>> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any\n>> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any\n>> association with the BD\'s.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any\n>> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.\n\n>Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,\n>then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and \n>make this to a show case.\n\nYou might be sure, but you would also be wrong.\n\n>And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order \n>word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting\n>their small children burn to ashes while they scream?\n\nI suspect the answer to this question is the same as the answer to,\n"Do not the actions of the likes of Stalin show the dangers of\natheism?"\n\n',
'From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)\nSubject: hating the sin but not the sinner?\nOrganization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 26\n\nWhat are the consequences of the homophobic ranting of the\nself-righteous?  Well, I just noted this on another group,\nand thought I\'d pass it along.  The context is talk.origins,\nand a report of yet another "debate" that was nothing but an\nattempt at mindless bullying and factless assertion by a\nstandard-issue Creationist.  The writer reflects that the\nbehavior reported reminds him of some Christian groups he has\nknown.  I believe that the writer is a (non-homosexual) Christian:\n\n+\tThere is a very effective technique used to promote\n+\tunit cohesion among the Soldiers of the Lord.  It is\n+\tcalled "witnessing"...  I\'ve seen this process used well\n+\tand poorly; the near devil worship I mention was a group \n+\t... that was using the witnessing to get people lathered\n+\tup to go kill homosexuals or at least terrorize them off \n+\tcampus as it was clearly God\'s will that they do so.\n\nI have deleted the specifics of the location, as I do not\nbelieve it characteristic of the place (a state in which I\nspent my formative first 10 years), though it *does* have,\nunfortunately, a subpopulation that this remark fits to a tee.\n-- \nMichael L. Siemon\t\tI say "You are gods, sons of the\nmls@panix.com\t\t\tMost High, all of you; nevertheless\n    - or -\t\t\tyou shall die like men, and fall\nmls@ulysses.att..com\t\tlike any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7\n',
"From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nOrganization: AT&T\nDistribution: na\nLines: 13\n\nIn article <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>, edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:\n> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:54:38 GMT, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) said:\n> \n> DLB> \tFirst I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It \n> DLB> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar, \n> DLB>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he \n> DLB>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity, \n> DLB> in the process he became a Christian himself.\n> \n> Here we go again...\n\nJust the friendly folks at Christian Central, come to save you.\n\n",
'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 120\n\nIn <16BA7103C3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n\n>In article <1993Apr5.091258.11830@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>\n>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:\n> \n>(Deletion)\n>>>>Of course people say what they think to be the religion, and that this\n>>>>is not exactly the same coming from different people within the\n>>>>religion.  There is nothing with there existing different perspectives\n>>>>within the religion -- perhaps one can say that they tend to converge on\n>>>>the truth.\n>>\n>>>My point is that they are doing a lot of harm on the way in the meantime.\n>>>\n>>>And that they converge is counterfactual, religions appear to split and\n>>>diverge. Even when there might be a \'True Religion\' at the core, the layers\n>>>above determine what happens in practise, and they are quite inhumane\n>>>usually.\n>>>\n> \n>What you post then is supposed to be an answer, but I don\'t see what is has\n>got to do with what I say.\n> \n>I will repeat it. Religions as are harm people. And religions don\'t\n>converge, they split. Giving more to disagree upon. And there is a lot\n>of disagreement to whom one should be tolerant or if one should be\n>tolerant at all.\n\nIdeologies also split, giving more to disagree upon, and may also lead\nto intolerance.  So do you also oppose all ideologies?\n\nI don\'t think your argument is an argument against religion at all, but\njust points out the weaknesses of human nature.\n\n>(Big deletion)\n>>(2) Do women have souls in Islam?\n>>\n>>People have said here that some Muslims say that women do not have\n>>souls.  I must admit I have never heard of such a view being held by\n>>Muslims of any era.  I have heard of some Christians of some eras\n>>holding this viewpoint, but not Muslims.  Are you sure you might not be\n>>confusing Christian history with Islamic history?\n> \n>Yes, it is supposed to have been a predominant view in the Turkish\n>Caliphate.\n\nI would like a reference if you have got one, for this is news to me.\n\n>>Anyhow, that women are the spiritual equals of men can be clearly shown\n>>from many verses of the Qur\'an.  For example, the Qur\'an says:\n>>\n>>"For Muslim men and women, --\n>>for believing men and women,\n>>for devout men and women,\n>>for true men and women,\n>>for men and women who are patient and constant,\n>>for men and women who humble themselves,\n>>for men and women who give in charity,\n>>for men and women who fast (and deny themselves),\n>>for men and women who guard their chastity,\n>>and for men and women who engage much in God\'s praise --\n>>For them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward."\n>>\n>>[Qur\'an 33:35, Abdullah Yusuf Ali\'s translation]\n>>\n>>There are other quotes too, but I think the above quote shows that men\n>>and women are spiritual equals (and thus, that women have souls just as\n>>men do) very clearly.\n>>\n> \n>No, it does not. It implies that they have souls, but it does not say they\n>have souls. And it is not given that the quote above is given a high\n>priority in all interpretations.\n\nOne must approach the Qur\'an with intelligence.  Any thinking approach\nto the Qur\'an cannot but interpret the above verse and others like it\nthat women and men are spiritual equals.\n\nI think that the above verse does clearly imply that women have\nsouls.  Does it make any sense for something without a soul to be\nforgiven?  Or to have a great reward (understood to be in the\nafter-life)?  I think the usual answer would be no -- in which case, the\npart saying "For them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward"\nsays they have souls.  \n\n(If it makes sense to say that things without souls can be forgiven, then \nI have no idea _what_ a soul is.)\n\nAs for your saying that the quote above may not be given a high priority\nin all interpretations, any thinking approach to the Qur\'an has to give\nall verses of the Qur\'an equal priority.  That is because, according to\nMuslim belief, the _whole_ Qur\'an is the revelation of God -- in fact,\ndenying the truth of any part of the Qur\'an is sufficient to be\nconsidered a disbeliever in Islam.\n\n>Quite similar to you other post, even when the Quran does not encourage\n>slavery, it is not justified to say that iit forbids or puts an end to\n>slavery. It is a non sequitur.\n\nLook, any approach to the Qur\'an must be done with intelligence and\nthought.  It is in this fashion that one can try to understand the\nQuran\'s message.  In a book of finite length, it cannot explicitly\nanswer every question you want to put to it, but through its teachings\nit can guide you.  I think, however, that women are the spiritual equals\nof men is clearly and unambiguously implied in the above verse, and that\nsince women can clearly be "forgiven" and "rewarded" they _must_ have\nsouls (from the above verse).\n\nLet\'s try to understand what the Qur\'an is trying to teach, rather than\ntry to see how many ways it can be misinterpreted by ignoring this\npassage or that passage.  The misinterpretations of the Qur\'an based on\nignoring this verse or that verse are infinite, but the interpretations \nfully consistent are more limited.  Let\'s try to discuss these\ninterpretations consistent with the text rather than how people can\nignore this bit or that bit, for that is just showing how people can try\nto twist Islam for their own ends -- something I do not deny -- but\nprovides no reflection on the true teachings of Islam whatsoever.\n\n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   \n',
'From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)\nSubject: Cannanite genocide in the Bible\nLines: 6\nOrganization: Walla Walla College\nLines: 6\n\nexcuse me for my ignorance. But I remember reading once that the \nBiblical tribe known as the Philistines still exists...they are the modern \nday Palestinians.\nAnyone out there with more info, please post it!!!\n\nTammy\n',
"From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured?\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 17\n\nIn article <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>\ningles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:\n \n>\n> As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples\n>were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce\n>their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.\n> Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening\n>to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held\n>belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any\n>evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...\n>\n \nEarly authors and legends. The most important sources can be found in the\nMartyriologia of the Catholic Church. Makes the Grimms look like exact\nscience.\n   Benedikt\n",
'From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy\'s Sweetie)\nSubject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre\nSummary: Another Inerrantist rewrites the Bible.\nKeywords: Scripture, implication, prophesy, Woof!\'\nOrganization: Rowan College of New Jersey\nDisclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog hopes his doghouse will be rebuilt.\nLines: 93\n\n\nThere has been a lot of discussion about Tyre.  In sum, Ezekiel prophesied\nthat the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of\npeople living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.\n\nThis doesn\'t bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used\ndifferently than do so-called Biblical literalists.  For example, it sometimes\nhappens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns\naround and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh!  Isn\'t she the cutest thing!?"\n\nThis person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the\nworld according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for\nfirst.  Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very\nobject-oriented.  Because this example is one that is common to many people,\nnobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is\noften at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly\nliterally true.  For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,\nit is not.\n\n\nTurning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from\nJohn E King:\n\n> The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the\n> area[.]\n\nNo, it implies nothing of the kind.  If you had nothing but the prophecy from\nEzekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say\n"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff\nlike that."  You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never\nbe rebuilt", and you\'d conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock.  The only way\nto get from fishing nets\' to houses and buildings and a medium-large\npopulation\' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.\n\nIn other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the\nprophecy at the time it was written.  There is no way that, given a literal\nreading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".\n\nYou seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but\nit is hardly a clear implication\'.\n\n\nMr King also writes:\n\n> So far I\'ve seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.\n> Let\'s assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards\n> we are talking about a one-horse town.\n\nWell, no.  That\'s only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I\'m\nfrom.  You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington\nresigned his commission in the statehouse?  Annapolis may not be New York, but\nit\'s at least a two-horse town.\n\nBut supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it\'s still 22,000 people\nMORE than Ezekiel predicted.\n\n\nAnd you\'ve said nothing about the other problem.  In chapter 26, Ezekiel\npredicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their\nvaluables.  However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29\nEzekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the\ncampaign he led against Tyre."\n\nLet\'s ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.\nEzekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre.  Ezekiel says\nthat N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.\n\nRegardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before\nthe place was destroyed.  Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.\n\n *\n\nThis post is, of course, pointless.  Inerrantists have an amazing ability\nto rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.\n\nFor example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26\nby pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.\n\nWhen Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied\nthat the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers\nused to be.  And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses\nand throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied\nthat N. would never set foot on the island.  And when Ezekiel wrote that N.\nwould "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would\nspend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the\nwalls.\n\nSee?  A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and\nyou can reconcile anything you want.\n\n\nDarren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu\n"[Do] You know why I\'m the enabler?  Because you demand it!" -- Cliff Claven\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Davidians and compassion\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 26\n\nSo we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire\non their house, killing most of the people inside.\n\nI'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what\nthey were doing, and it's their own actions.\n\nWhat I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,\nincluding mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful\nconditions.\n\nIf this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud\nthat I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.\n\nYou might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare\nthe innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.\n\nI have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity\nknows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think \nthe actions today would produce a good picture of your \nreligion?\n\n\nKent\n\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: A Little Too Satanic\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 16\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <66486@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n|> Jeff West writes:\n|> \n|> >You claimed that people that took the time to translate the bible would\n|> >also take the time to get it right.  But here in less than a couple\n|> >generations you\'ve been given ample proof (agreed to by yourself above)\n|> >that the "new" versions "tends to be out of step with other modern\n|> >translations."\n|> \n|> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly.\n|> Translations present completely different issues.\n\nSo why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different\nversions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand?\n\njon. \n',
'From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)\nSubject: Re: islamic authority over women\nNntp-Posting-Host: nin\nOrganization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England\nLines: 49\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n\n> One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",\n> because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.\n> Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my\n> point.\n\nOh, Bobby. You\'re priceless. Did I ever tell you that?\n\nMy policy with Bobby\'s posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick\nthrough the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby\'s which\nhave generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the\nhilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.\n\nFor the guy who said he\'s just arrived, and asked whether Bobby\'s for real,\nyou betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.\nI have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone\n(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?\n\n     "In Allah\'s infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,\n        just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."\n           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1\n\n     "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn\'t that\n      contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and\n      reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."\n           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2\n\n              "Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory\n                    to the Quran for Allah not to exist."\n           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3\n\nand now\n\n   "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",\n    because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men. Compare\n    that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my point."\n         -- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism\n\nMmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).\n\nCheers\n\nSimon\n-- \nSimon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk\nDepartment of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296\nUniversity of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714\nCoventry CV4 7AL, U.K.\n',
'From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)\nSubject: Re: Gospel Dating\nLines: 48\n\n>So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I \n>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?\n\nWell, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim\nthat you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman\npowers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers\nyou have are not beyond those of a human.  Hence, you cannot have superhuman\npowers.  Sound good to you?\n\nAnyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context.  In this group,\nsince you are posting from a american college site, I\'m willing to take it\nas given that you have a pair of blue jeans.  And, assuming there is some\ncoherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have\nsuperhuman powers.  Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.\n\n>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you \n>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.\n\nYep.\n\n>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID \n>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named \n>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn\'t ever a man.\n\nGood.\n\n>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth \n>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection, \n>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.\n\n"Extra" evidence?  Why don\'t we start with evidence at all?\n\nI cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would\never accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.\nAnyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)\nis a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since\nthese are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole\nthing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--\neven those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so\nagain I don\'t see how evidence is possible.\n\nI thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the\nspeaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.\n-- \nC. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,\n                  +    but strife closed in the sod.\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:\ntove!mangoe       +    the marv\'lous peace of God."\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 47\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >I don\'t expect the lion to know, or not know anything of the kind.\n|> >In fact, I don\'t have any evidence that lions ever consider such \n|> >issues.\n|> >And that, of course, is why I don\'t think you can assign moral\n|> >significance to the instinctive behaviour of lions.\n|> \n|> What I\'ve been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.\n|> That is, it doesn\'t take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to\n|> be immoral (in some cases).\n\nThat\'s the craziest thing I ever heard.   Are you serious?\n\n\t"it doesn\'t take much work to be moral?"\n\n|> Also, I\'ve said that morality is a remnant of evolution.  \n\nReally?   And that\'s why people discuss morality on a daily basis?\nBecause it\'s a kind of evolutionary hangover, like your little toe?\n\n|> Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in the animal \n|> kingdom.\n\nThis must be some novel use of the phrase "based on" with which I\nam not sufficiently familiar.    What do you mean by "based on" and \nwhat is the significance of it for your argument?\n\n|> \n|> >>So you are basically saying that you think a "moral" is an undefinable\n|> >>term, and that "moral systems" don\'t exist?  If we can\'t agree on a\n|> >>definition of these terms, then how can we hope to discuss them?\n|> >\n|> >No, it\'s perfectly clear that I am saying that I know what a moral\n|> >is in *my* system, but that I can\'t speak for other people.\n|> \n|> But, this doesn\'t get us anywhere.  Your particular beliefs are irrelevant\n|> unless you can share them or discuss them...\n\nWell, we can.   What would you like to know about my particular moral\nbeliefs?\n\nIf you raise a topic I\'ve never considered, I\'ll be quite happy to \ninvent a moral belief out of thin air.\n\njon.\n',
'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: New Member\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>,\ndfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) wrote:\n>   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been\n> done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed\n> the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn\'t\n> followed so it can\'t be the reason for the event. There really is no way\n> to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his \n> answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time\n> with his little argument. I don\'t think there will be any postings from\n> me in direct response to one of his.\n\nHey! Glad to have some serious and constructive contributors in this\nnewsgroup. I agree 100% on the statement above, you might argue with\nBobby for eons, and he still does not get it, so the best thing is\nto spare your mental resources to discuss more interesting issues.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 19\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,\nmlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n> These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had\n> expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a\n> direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God\n> is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.\n> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to \n> God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the\n> age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is\n> repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just\n> for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile\n> alike.\n\nJews won't agree with you, Malcolm.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh\'s 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nOrganization: /usr/lib/news/organization\nLines: 32\nNNTP-Posting-Host: susie.sbc.com\n\nIn article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:\n>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:\n>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n>>>For those who think David Koresh didn\'t have a solid structure,\n>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,\n>> \n>> I don\'t think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his\n>> sermon. It\'s the deaths he\'s responsible for that concern most people.\n>\n>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?\n\nOnly my common sense. The fire was caused by either Koresh and his\nfollowers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA. Since\nyou are throwing around the evidence arguement, I\'ll throw it back. Can\nyou prove any government agency did it? (Please don\'t resort to "they \ncovered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how\nthe government agencies intentionally started the fire. The key words\nare proof and evidence.)\nproves they did it"\n\n>\n>> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.\n>\n>I\'d like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ\n>translation mistranslates. Self-defense was never considered murder. The\n\nPlease explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who\nburned. \n\n-- \n Tim Henrion Southwestern Bell Technology Resources\n thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com \n', 'From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat)\nSubject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?\nOrganization: Cured, discharged\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <1pa0f4INNpit@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n\n> But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?\n\nEvery time somone writes something and says it is merely describing the norm,\nit is infact re-inforcing that norm upon those programmed not to think for\nthemselves. The motto is dangerous in itself, it tells the world that every\n*true* American is god-fearing, and puts down those who do not fear gods. It\ndoesn\'t need anyone to make it dangerous, it does a good job itself by just\nexisting on your currency.\n\n> keith\n\nThe Desert Brat\n-- \nJohn J McVey, Elc&Eltnc Eng, Whyalla, Uni S Australia, ________\n9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au T.S.A.K.C. \\/Darwin o\\\nFor replies, mail to whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au /\\________/\nDisclaimer: Unisa hates my opinions. bb bb\n+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+\n|"It doesn\'t make a rainbow any less beautiful that we | "God\'s name is smack |\n|understand the refractive mechanisms that chance to | for some." |\n|produce it." - Jim Perry, perry@dsinc.com | - Alice In Chains |\n+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+\n', 'From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)\nSubject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...\nOrganization: Microsoft Corp.\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 32\n\n\n\n/(Frank DeCenso)\n/>\n/>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important\n/>to me. \n\nOf course it is. It forms a very big part of your self-respect. You come onto \nthe board, thinking you\'re some sort of apologeticist for your faith, and you\nroutinely get roasted over a grill for stupid theories and unfounded assumptions.\n\n\n\n\n/(Frank DeCenso)\n/This board will have\n/>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in. I tried dropping\n/>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back. He won\'t this time.\n\nI doubt that Sieferman has anything to do with you dropping out. \n\nIt\'s probably closer to the truth to say that you don\'t have the cards to \nplay in this game (because you insist on playing from a losing hand), and you\'re\nfinally realizing it. You will lurk on the board, and keep \nquiet for a while, looking for an area where you are *certain* that you \nare correct, and then we\'ll see you pop back in again. Of course, you then\nwill say that you have merely returned because your life is now "in order".\n\nBut we\'ll know better.\n\n\n\n', "Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nFrom: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)\nOrganization: The Old Frog's Almanac\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n\n>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed\n>for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the \n\nSeems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply\nanother deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of\nfolks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim\nJones, circa 1993.\n\n>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.\n>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?\n\nNope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption\nfor centuries.\n-- \nThe Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher \n (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT \n Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island \nwith public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac\n", 'From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)\nSubject: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)\nDistribution: usa\nOrganization: Intelligent Systems Program\nLines: 39\n\nm23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:\n>}So stop dodging the question. What is hypocritical about my\n>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree\n>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion? \n>\n>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,\n>telepathy, and telempathy. Divine it yourself.\n\nAnother dodge. Oh well. I\'m no match for your amazing repertoire\nof red herrings and smoke screens. \n\nYou asked for an apology. I\'m not going to apologize for pointing out\nthat your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument. Nor for saying\nthat your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of\nscholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,\njust as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies. Nor\nfor objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context. Nor\nfor pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling\nyour red herrings and smoke screens what they are.\n\nI\'m still not sure why you think I\'m a hypocrite. It\'s true that I\nhaven\'t responded to any of Robert Weiss\' articles, which may be due in\npart to the fact that I almost never read his articles. But I have\nresponded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.) Both\nyou and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I\'ve objected to\nboth of you doing so. I\'ve criticized bad arguments both when they\nwere yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not\ninerrant), and when they were Frank\'s and I disagreed with the\nconclusion. I\'ve criticized both you and Frank for evading questions,\nand for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections\nI raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank\nby accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I\ndon\'t see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.\n\nI do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.\n\nHappy now?\n\ndj\n', 'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 23\n\nIn article <C5KxDD.K4J@boi.hp.com>, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)\nwrote:\n> If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the \n> following: \n> \n> Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven\n> and on earth has been given to me.\n> \n> Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing\n> them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,\n> \n> Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.\n> And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." \n\nJim, please, that\'s a lame explanation of the trinity that Jesus provides\nabove. Baptizing people in the name of three things != trinity. If\nthis is the case, then I\'m wrong, I assumed that trinity implies that\nGod is three entities, and yet the same.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n', "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 25\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,\nmlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:\n> \n> It is true what you stated above: Jesus' saving grace is available to\n> everyone, not just Jews. In other words, everyone can have salvation but\n> not everyone will. This option is now open to people other than just\n> Jews. Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would\n> hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said. But I don't feel\n> any animosity towards them. Even though they persecuted Jesus and his\n> disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will. If anything,\n> I feel pity for them. Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and\n> so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy. Jesus knew He had to die even\n> before He began His ministry. That demonstrates the great depth of His love\n> for us.\n\nJesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the\nchildren who died today at the Davidian complex.\n\nSorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering\norganized religion.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n", "From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is \nOrganization: Microsoft Corporation\nLines: 17\n\nIn article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:\n>\n>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing\n>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?\n\nThe same way that any theory is proven false. You examine the predicitions\nthat the theory makes, and try to observe them. If you don't, or if you\nobserve things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some \nevidence against the theory. If the theory can't be modified to \nincorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false.\n\nFor example, people used to believe that the earth had been created\n10,000 years ago. But, as evidence showed that predictions from this \ntheory were not true, it was abandoned.\n\n-Russ Paul-Jones\nrusspj@microsoft.com\n", 'From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)\nSubject: Re: Silence is concurance\nNntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org\nOrganization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 76\n\nIn article <9157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n}For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between\n}Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out\n\nHate to shatter your self image of perfection that you appear to hold, but\nyour language is wrong: Jim and me.\n\n}I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and\n}Jim Meritt took quotes out of context. Hence, I find it difficult to\n}understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite. Needless to say, I don\'t\n}have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote\n}out of context. \n\nOf course not - just the ones you disagree with. Q.E.D.\n\n}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for\n}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a\n}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?\n}\n}Jim replied by saying \n}>Did I either ask or assert that?\n}\n}But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject\n\nSo? As of then, and pointing out a specific instance. Wrongo again.\n\n}>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of\n}>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual\n}>may be held responsible for that action?\n}\n}Which is, of course, a complete red herring. Taking quotes out of\n}context isn\'t a crime. I don\'t have time to read every article on\n}t.r.m., and I\'m certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.\n\nSo? Check the newsgroups?\n\n}Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I\n}didn\'t respond to Weiss\' articles I must condone Weiss\' taking quotes\n}out of context? Jim doesn\'t want to give a direct answer to this\n}question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.\n\nTelepathy again? You claim to know what I "want".\n\n}But back to the context of my conversation with Jim. Jim\'s next \n}gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he\n}concluded that I was being a hypocrite. I challenged him to provide\n}the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.\n\nNo. YOu asked specifically what was wrong with yours.\n\n}Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn\'t help\n\nMaybe to the ignorant. I accept your classification.\n\n}More red herrings. Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large\n}number of my articles? \n\nDo you know what "uncountably large" means? It does not appear so.\n\n}Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,\n}but not Weiss\' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...\n}Well, I can\'t see where he is going with this.\n\nI am not suprised.\n\n}But I can help him with his induction. I\'ve written roughly 80\n\nThat does not appear to be the case. The appearance of your "Argument"\nis more like that Captain Kirk would have gotten from Mr. Spock - written\nby a stagehand at Paramount.\n\n}Think hard about this Jim. See the pattern? Think harder. Run it\n}through your induction engine and see what pops out. \n\nOf course. You appear arrogant. So? I already had figured that out.\n\n', "From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)\nLines: 18\nReply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu\n\n\nIn a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:\n\n>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.\n\nOK: So you were a naive teen.\n\n>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. \n\n\tWrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.\nBut he was born LAST century (1883).\n\n>\n>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. \n\nNo it isn't. \n\n\n", "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 14\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n\n>So how do you then explain sudden violent behavior of human beings?\n>Your theory would state that the more the human is detached from \n>primitive behavior, the more violent and non-moralistic the human\n>becomes (please correct me if my understanding was wrong). So\n>you have this bifurcation point where a madman is killing people\n>from the roof of a campus. Could you explain how your 'theory'\n>explains such a situation?\n\nMadmen are mad. Do we try to explain the output from a broken computer?\nI think not.\n\nkeith\n", 'From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org\nSubject: By the sword...\nOrganization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway\nLines: 13\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu\n\nDeuteronmy 20:13\nAnd when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite\nevery male thereof with the edge of the sword\n\nJoshua 6:21\nAnd they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,\nyoung and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.\n\nJoshua 10:32\nAnd the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the\nsecond day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that\nwere therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah\n\n', 'Subject: Re: Biblical Rape\nFrom: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\n <1p387f$jh3@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar29.010116.18203@watson.ibm.com> \n <16BA0D964.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> \n <1993Apr01.184110.33851@watson.ibm.com> \n <16BA4ADAC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> \n <1993Apr03.012536.18323@watson.ibm.com> <16BA6C534.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1993Apr04.225107.39364@watson.ibm.com>\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 154\n\nIn article <1993Apr04.225107.39364@watson.ibm.com>\nstrom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>\n>The thread "Biblical Rape" was initiated by David O Hunt.\n>Here is his posting:\n>In article <8feu_KO00XsF0kpc5p@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:\n>|> I\'m pretty sure I\'ve seen biblical rules for when it\'s allowable to rape\n>|> prisoners, what the codes are about that, etc.  Could some more\n>|> knowledgable soul than I please let me know some references?\n>\n>He asked a very narrow question, and I gave a very narrow answer.\n>\n \nYes, sorry. I have got that wrong. My apology.\n \n \n(Deletion)\n \n>No. David Hunt\'s post didn\'t mention a god, nor did my response.\n>You were the first to bring up the idea of the Bible being "given\n>by god".  Most Jews don\'t believe this in any literal sense.\n>\n \nSo? No fun, but I must have met the minority then.\nAnd "given by god" refers to any action whereby a god\ngod causes or better effects something.\n \n \nRob, I am not intimate with Jewish theology, but I understand\nthat you are a Messianic Jew. Correct me if I am wrong, but\nit appears that the views of Messianic Jews on metaphysics\nis different to that of the majority of Jews. While Jewish\ntheology overall is quite distinct from the Christianic god\nviews, I have heard that it is possible for Jews to attribute\nevil to their god, an no-no for Christians, the Bible is\nstill seen as effect of the interaction of some god with man.\n \n \n(Deletion)\n>No.  I thought we agreed that though Jews disagree,\n>there are a set of core beliefs that they do agree upon,\n>one of which is that the commandments are accessible\n>and written in the language of the time, and another\n>of which is that there must be a legal system to update them.\n>\n \nThe context was metaphysics, even when the process of adapting\nthe commandments is not transcendent, the justification of the\nprocess lie in metaphysic specualtion. I wonder how you break\nout of the shackles of having metaphysics in your system.\n \n \n(Deletion)\n>Could you explain this with respect to the original commandments\n>being discussed --- that is, the commandment that says if\n>you feel like raping a woman prisoner, you should instead\n>wait and marry her?  What about "the way this commandment\n>is given" invalidates it?\n>\n \nIs is in a book that commands to commit genocide among other\nreprehensible deeds. The context is repulsive, and it is\nfoul play, IMO, to invoke some relatively enlightened passages\nas an example for the content of the whole book.\n \n \n(Big deletion)\n>|>\n>|> The point is that I see that there is a necessary connection\n>|> between the theology you use and the interpretation of the Bible.\n>|>\n>\n>Only very loosely.  My interpretation of the Bible is\n>based on a long tradition of Jewish scholars interpreting\n>the Bible.  Theology doesn\'t really enter into it ---\n>there are Jewish atheists who interpret the laws of\n>charity essentially the same way I do.\n>\n \nNo, not the interpretation of some laws, but the interpretation of\nthe bible. As in the example that Sodom and Gomorrha mean argue\nwith god. The whole idea that it is metaphorically and yet allows\nyou to argue with a god (whatever that means, that alone is a theo-\nlogic question) is proof of a theology used.\n \n \n>|> >You pose another metaphysical riddle!\n>|>\n>|> No, you do.\n>|>\n>\n>Well, you wrote this:\n>|> Fine. So we have some major spirit with neither absolute power\n>|> nor absolute knowledge. And, as it appears, limited means or will\n>|> to communicate with us. Some form of spiritual big friend.\n>|> Do you admit that using god in this context is somewhat unusual?\n>|>\n>|> Am I right in the assumption that it cannot have created the\n>|> universe as well? And that the passages in the Bible referring\n>|> to that or its omnipotence are crap?\n>\n>That\'s what I meant by the "riddle".\n>\n \nIt is an important question in the light of what for instance the\npassage witrh Sodom and Gomorrha means. Either there is some connection\nbetween the text, the fact that it exists, and your interpretation of\nit, or it is purely arbitrary.. Further, the question is why is has\none to carry the burden of Biblical texts when one could simply write\nother books that convey the message better. You might answer that one\ncan\'t becuase  some peculiar Biblical information might be lost, but\nthat holds true of every other book, and the question remains why has\nthe Bible still a special place? Can\'t it be replaced somehow? Is it\nok to bargain the dangerous content of the Bible against some other\nmessage that is included as well?\n \n \n(Deletion)\n>|> Do you see the danger in doing so? Especially with the metaphers used\n>|> in the Bible?\n>\n>I think the danger of doing so is less than either the\n>danger of having a frozen system of laws, or having no laws.\n>\n \nSorry, but there are worse systems does not say anything about if\none could not have a better system.\n \n(Deletion)\n>If we\n>read two stories about the importance of helping the poor,\n>and in one God is a spirit, and in the other God has a body,\n>which is more important, helping the poor, or resolving\n>the contradiction about the corporeal nature of God?\n>\n \nIf we read two stories in the Bible, one that god commands people\nto kill children for being idolaters and another where god kills\nchildren directly, what is more important to resolve, the message that\nchildren are to be killed or if it has  to be done by god?\n \n \nAnd the argument you have given is a fallacy, while it may not be important\nin the context you have given to find out if god is corporeal or not, it\ncan be crucial in other questions. Religious believers resolve contradictions\nwith that they choose one of the possibilities given in an arbitrary way,\nand have the advantage of being able to attribute their decision to some\ngod.\n \nOne cannot resolve questions by the statement do what is good when what\nis good depends on the question.\n   Benedikt\n',
'From: b.liddicott@ic.ac.uk\nSubject: Re: He has risen!\nOrganization: Imperial College Parapsychology Group\nLines: 8\nNNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu\n\n\n\nJust to remark that I have heard that David Koresh has risen from \nthe dead.  I dont know if it is true or not, but this is what I have\nbeen told.  What do you guys think?\n\nBen L.\n\n',
'Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the u\nFrom: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu\nReply-To: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu\nOrganization: Moorhead State University, Moorhead, MN\nNntp-Posting-Host: 134.29.97.2\nLines: 23\n\n>>>667\n>>>the neighbor of the beast\n>>\n>>No, 667 is across the street from the beast.  664 and 668 are the\n>>neighbors of the beast.\n>\n>I think some people are still not clear on this:\n>667 is *not* the neighbor of the beast, but, rather, across the\n>street. It is, in fact, 668 which is the neighbor of the beast.\n\nno, sheesh, didn\'t you know 666 is the beast\'s apartment?  667 is across the\nhall from the beast, and is his neighbor along with the rest of the 6th floor.\n\n>Justin (still trying to figure out what this has to do with alt.discordia)\n\nThis doesn\'t seem discordant to you?\n\n-----------------------     ----------------------     -----------------------\n\t-Paul W. Stigaard, Lokean Discordian Libertarian\n  !XOA!\t\tinternet:  stigaard@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu\n (fnord)       Episkopos and Chair, Moorhead State University Campus Discordians\n\t\tRectal neufotomist at large\n     "If I left a quote here, someone would think it meant something."\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 63\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1ql8ekINN635@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What\n|> >>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals?\n|> >>>\n|> >>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to \n|> >>>assume your conclusion.\n|> >>\n|> >>Which conclusion?\n|> >\n|> >You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is\n|> >instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.\n|> \n|> See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said\n|> that it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive\n|> behavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply\n|> human terms to non-humans.\n\nPardon me?   *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?\n\nI think there must be some confusion here.   I\'m the guy who is\nsaying that if animal behaviour is instinctive then it does *not*\nhave any moral sugnificance.   How does refusing to apply human\nterms to animals get turned into applying human terms?\n\n|> I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative, \n|> this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.\n\nI\'m sure you do think this, if you say so.   How about trying to\nconvince me?\n\n|> \n|> >>You don\'t think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human\n|> >>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given\n|> >>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral.\n|> >\n|> >You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that\n|> >the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior \n|> >pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for\n|> >example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would\n|> >not call a morality.\n|> \n|> I try to show it, but by your definition, it can\'t be shown.\n\nI\'ve offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if\nyou allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion\nof the planets.\n\n|> \n|> And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be\n|> defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However,\n|> it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of\n|> phyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least\n|> some free will.\n\nAh, the law of "silly" and "less silly".   what Mr Livesey finds \nintuitive is "silly" but what Mr Schneider finds intuitive is "less \nsilly".\n\nNow that\'s a devastating argument, isn\'t it.\n\njon.\n',
'From: cocoa@netcom.com\nSubject: Re: Jewish history question\nOrganization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)\nLines: 60\n\nIn article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:\n>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com (little \'e\') writes:\n>\n[deleted]\n>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated\n>> into Greek a long time ago\n>\n>   Yes, that\'s a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation\n>made by Greek Jews.\n>\n>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.\n>\n>   I don\'t know what you\'re referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was\n>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew\n>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones.  I don\'t know about any "originals".\n\nThe person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks\nhad a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls\nand that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated \n(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just\nas part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes\nin power groups, he/I dunno).\n\n>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must \n>> have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the \n>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?\n\n>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah\'s prophecy about a "young\n>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers\n>read it), but not many.\n\nWell, perhaps this is the answer then.\n\n[deleted]\n>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you\'ll get a Bible translated by Jews, so\n>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they\'re \n>translating *from* is basically the same.\n>\n>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That\n>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English\n>translation written underneath each word.\n>\n>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try\n>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I\'ve never seen one.)  The Samaritans \n>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.\n>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.\n\nThanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)\n\nJust me,\n\nlittle \'e\'\n\n(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this\nyourself.)\n\n-- \n*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *\n*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *\n\n',
'From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.\nLines: 48\n\nIn article <16BAFA9D9.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n> \n> \n>Yes, but, fortunately, religions have been replaced by systems\n>that value Human Rights higher.\n\nSecular laws seem to value criminal life more than the victims life,\nIslam places the rights of society and every member in it above \nthe rights of the individual, this is what I call true human rights.\n\n> \n>By the way, do you actually support the claim of precedence of Islamic\n>Law? In case you do, what about the laws of other religions?\n\nAs a Muslim living in a non-Muslim land I am bound by the laws of the land\nI live in, but I do not disregard Islamic Law it still remains a part of my \nlife. If the laws of a land conflict with my religion to such an extent\nthat I am prevented from being allowed to practise my religion then I must \nleave the land. So in a way Islamic law does take precendence over secular law\nbut we are instructed to follow the laws of the land that we live in too.\n\nIn an Islamic state (one ruled by a Khaliphate) religions other than Islam\nare allowed to rule by their own religious laws provided they don\'t affect\nthe genral population and don\'t come into direct conflict with state \nlaws, Dhimmis (non-Muslim population) are exempt from most Islamic laws\non religion, such as fighting in a Jihad, giving Zakat (alms giving)\netc but are given the benefit of these two acts such as Military\nprotection and if they are poor they will receive Zakat.\n\n> \n>If not, what has it got to do with Rushdie? And has anyone reliable\n>information if he hadn\'t left Islam according to Islamic law?\n>Or is the burden of proof on him?\n>   Benedikt\n\nAfter the Fatwa didn\'t Rushdie re-affirm his faith in Islam, didn\'t\nhe go thru\' a very public "conversion" to Islam? If so he is binding\nhimself to Islamic Laws. He has to publicly renounce in his belief in Islam\nso the burden is on him.\n\nMas\n\n\n-- \nC I T I Z E N  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+\n_____   _____  | C A D E N C E  D E S I G N  S Y S T E M S  Inc. |\n     \\_/       | Masud Ahmed Khan mas@cadence.com All My Opinions|\n_____/ \\_____  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+\n',
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 74\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform\n>the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.\n\nIf you were omniscient, you\'d know who exactly did what, and with what\npurpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be\nable to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance\nwith the general goal.\n\n>>>I don\'t think you\'ve show the existence of *any* objective moral system.\n>>They exist, but in practice, they are difficult to perfectly emulate.\n>>I mean, you understand the concept of an objective system, right?\n>I thought you were explaining it to us.   I certainly don\'t\n>understand what you are explaining.\n\nIn an objective system, there are known goals.  Then, actions are judged\nas either being compatible with these goals, or not.  Simple.  The problem\nwith most systems in current practice is that the goals differ.  That is,\nthe goals of each society are different.\n\nNote that an objective system is not necessarily an inherent one.\n\n>>The concept of innocence is dependent on whether certain actions are\n>>"right" or "wrong," and this depends on the moral system.  But, if\n>>we have an objective system, then someone can be deemed innocent or\n>>not quite easily by an omniscient person.  Anyway, I think I cleared\n>>up the recursive definition of "murder," because no one is complaining\n>>about it.\n>I don\'t think it solves anything to speculate where we would be\n>if we *did* have an objective moral system.  The question is\n>still whether you can even say what one is.\n\nI\'ve said it many, many times.\n\n>And for what it\'s worth, I don\'t think you cleared up *anything*\n>concerning murder.\n\nWhich part do you have a problem with?\n\n>>>What do you mean by "harmed?"  Is it harm if you have to spend\n>>>your existence metabolising food for another species?\n>>Oh, most moral systems would be considered only within a species.  It\n>>is okay for us to enslave other animals, right?  But not humans...\n>>Of course, ideally, perhaps we wouldn\'t even have to bother any other\n>>animals...\n>One the first point, it\'s wrong to enslave humans according to my\n>persoanl moral system.  On the second point, I\'m a vegetarian.\n\nBut, we can enslave the animals, right?  But just not kill them?  Or\nare you a vegetarian for health reasons?\n\n>So, are you a vegetarian?\n\nNo.  I fail to see how my *personal* views are relevant, anyway.\n\n>Is it wrong to eat animals in your personal moral system?\n\nOf course not.  It seems perfectly valid to kill members of other species\nfor food.  It might be nice, though, if the other animals were not made\nto suffer.  For instance, a cow in a field lives out its life just about\nthe same way it would in the wild.  They seem happy enough.  However,\nthe veal youngsters aren\'t treated very well.\n\n>How about an "objective" moral system?\n\nI don\'t know.  What is the goal of this particular system?  There is no\ninherent system.\n\n>How about a "natural" moral system.\n\nNope.  Again, it seems okay to kill other species for food.\n\nkeith\n',
'From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy\'s Sweetie)\nSubject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention\nSummary: Update on events.\nKeywords: update, report, Woof!\'\nOrganization: Rowan College of New Jersey\nDisclaimer: Sometime tonight, Brandy the WonderDog will turn 11 years old.\n            You can e-mail your presents (he likes rawhide chewy toys) to\n            the address above.\nLines: 73\n\n\nThere were some recent developments in the dispute about Masonry among\nSouthern Baptists.  I posted a summary over in bit.listserv.christia, and\nI suppose that it might be useful here.  Note that I do not necessarily\nagree or disagree with any of what follows: I present it as information.\n\n *\n\nFor a short summary:  a Southern Baptist named Larry Holly wrote a book\nclaiming that Freemasonry is a religion incompatible with Christianity.\n(Mr Holly\'s father rejects Christianity, and Mr Holly blames that on the\nMasons.)\n\nThe SBC\'s Home Missions Board includes an interfaith witness department,\nwhich studies other religions and how to teach them about Christ.  A few\nyears ago, they were ordered to produce a report on Masonry: they concluded\nthat it was not a religion, and therefore was outside their speciality.\nHowever, Mr Holly led a movement of people who oppose Masonry, and\nlast year the Convention again ordered the HMB to study Masonry.  (I got the\nfeeling that they were saying "You got the wrong answer last time, try to\ndo better and get the answer we want.")\n\nAnyway, there\'s been a bit of infighting and some inappropriate actions, but\nthe dust has settled and the report is in.  Nobody is entirely happy with it,\nbut everybody seems willing to live with it.  Both sides are saying things\nsuch as: "This was the best we were going to get in the current environment."\n\nThe report commends the Masons for the charity work they do, such as the\nhospitals and burn centers they operate, as well as efforts to help the\nelderly and prevent drug abuse.  The report acknowledges that many well-\nknown Christians are and have been Masons, and notes that many teachings\nof Masonry are "supportive of Christian faith and practice".  Examples of\nthe latter include belief in God, emphases on honesty and integrity, and\nthat some Masonic lodges incorporate explicit Christian beliefs.\n\nOn the other hand, they note that some aspects of Masonry are incompatible\nwith Southern Baptist principles.  These included the use of titles which some\npeople consider sacrilegious, the taking of certain oaths (even though they\nare not meant seriously), the "undeniably pagan and/or occultic" writings of\nsome Masonic leaders, the implication in some Masonic writings that salvation\ncan be achieved by good works, and the racial discrimination practiced by many\nMasonic lodges.  (I note with some chagrin that Baptist churches as a whole\naren\'t really in a place to speak on this last point.)\n\n\nThe report concludes that Masonry is not a religion, and says that membership\nshould not be endorsed or censured, but left to the discretion of individuals.\nThis was in part because there is variation among different Masonic Lodges,\nand while one may include elements strongly against Christianity, another may\nnot.  Many Southern Baptists have strong convictions about the priesthood of\nthe believer and the autonomy of the local church, and this history probably\ninfluenced how the report came out.\n\n *\n\nThe information above was gleaned from "The Religious Herald", a publication\nof the Baptist General Association of Virginia, and "Baptists Today", which\ndoes not have any direct links to a religious organisation.  (Autonomy is a\nbig issue among some Baptists.  8-)\n\nBecause I have neither the report itself, nor whatever Masonic documents are\nrelevant to these issues, none of the above comes with a guarantee.  Your\nmileage may vary.  Void where prohibited.\n\n\nDarren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu\n\nMilton:  "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq,\n          cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then\n          sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk\n          chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."\n\nPraline: "That\'s as may be, it\'s still a frog."\n',
' zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nFrom: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\n <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> \n <1993Mar30.051246.29911@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8nd7$e9f@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com>\nOrganization: sgi\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\nLines: 20\n\nIn article <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective\n|> >moral system". And then I start to ask him about the definitions\n|> >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole\n|> >thing falls apart.\n|> \n|> It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it. This doesn\'t mean that\n|> an objective system can\'t exist. It just means that one cannot be\n|> implemented.\n\nIt\'s not the fact that it can\'t exist that bothers me. It\'s \nthe fact that you don\'t seem to be able to define it.\n\nIf I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in\nprinciple exist as long as you don\'t think about them too\ncarefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn\'t I?\n\njon.\n', "From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)\nSubject: Re: islamic authority over women\nReply-To: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)\nOrganization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada\nLines: 78\n\nsnm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n>In article <1993Apr7.163445.1203@wam.umd.edu> west@next02.wam.umd.edu writes:\n>>> >> And belief causes far more horrors.\n>>> >> Crusades, \n>>> >> the emasculation and internment of Native Americans, \n>>> >> the killing of various tribes in South America.\n>>> >-the Inquisition\n>>> >-the Counter-reformation and the wars that followed\n>>> >-the Salem witch trials\n>>> >-the European witch hunts\n>>> >-the holy wars of the middle east\n>>> >-the colonization/destruction of Africa\n>>> >-the wars between Christianity and Islam (post crusade)\n>>> >-the genocide (biblical) of the Canaanites and Philistines\n>>> >-Aryian invasion of India\n>>> >-the attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany\n>>> >-the current missionary assaults on tribes in Africa\n>>> \n>>> I think all the horrors you mentioned are due to *lack* of people\n>>> following religion.\n.d.\n>By lack of people following religion I also include fanatics- people\n>that don't know what they are following.\n.d.\n>So how do you know that you were right?\n>Why are you trying to shove down my throat that religion causes horrors.\n>It really covers yourself- something false to save yourself.\n>\n>Peace,\n>\n>Bobby Mozumder\n>\nI just thought of another one, in the Bible, so it's definately not because\nof *lack* of religion. The Book of Esther (which I read the other day for\nother reasons) describes the origin of Pur'im, a Jewish celbration of joy\nand peace. The long and short of the story is that 75,000 people were\nkilled when people were tripping over all of the peacefull solutions \nlying about (you couldn't swing a sacred cow without slammin into a nice,\npeaceful solution.) 'Course Joshua and the jawbone of an ass spring to\nmind...\n\nI agree with Bobby this far: religion as it is used to kill large numbers\nof people is usually not used in the form or manner that it was originally\nintended for.\n\nThat doesn't reduce the number of deaths directly caused by religion, it is\njust a minor observation of the fact that there is almost nothing pure in\nthe Universe. The very act of honestly attempting to find true meaning in\nreligious teaching has many times inspired hatred and led to war. Many\npeople have been led by religious leaders more involved in their own\nstomache-contentsthan in any absolute truth, and have therefore been driven to\nkill by their leaders.\n\nThe point is that there are many things involved in religion that often\nlead to war. Whether these things are a part of religion, an unpleasant\nside effect or (as Bobby would have it) the result of people switching\nbetween Religion and Atheism spontaneously, the results are the same. \n\n@Religious groups have long been involved in the majority of the bloodiest\nparts of Man's history.@\n\nAtheists, on the other hand (preen,preen) are typically not an ideological\nsocial caste, nor are they driven to organize and spread their beliefs.\nThe overuse of Nazism and Stalinism just show how true this is: Two groups\nwith very clear and specific ideologies using religious persecution to\nfurther their means. Anyone who cannot see the obvious - namely that these\nwere groups founded for reasons *entirely* their own, who used religious\npersecution not because of any belief system but because it made them more\npowerfull - is trying too hard. Basically, Bobby uses these examples\nbecause there are so few wars that were *not* *specifically* fought over\nreligion that he does not have many choices.\n\nWell, I'm off to Key West where the only flames are heating the bottom of\nlittle silver butter-dishes.\n\n-ciao\n\n-chris blask\n", 'From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nIn-Reply-To: healta@saturn.wwc.edu\'s message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02: 51:29 GMT\nOrganization: Compaq Computer Corp\n\t<healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>\nLines: 47\n\n>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02:51:29 GMT, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) said:\nTRH> I hope you\'re not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you\'\nTRH> ve given me.\n\nBut you have been courteous and therefore received courtesy in return. This\nperson instead has posted one of the worst arguments I have ever seen\nmade from the pro-Christian people. I\'ve known several Jesuits who would\nlaugh in his face if he presented such an argument to them.\n\nLet\'s ignore the fact that it\'s not a true trilemma for the moment (nice\nword Maddi, original or is it a real word?) and concentrate on the\nliar, lunatic part.\n\nThe argument claims that no one would follow a liar, let alone thousands\nof people. Look at L. Ron Hubbard. Now, he was probably not all there,\nbut I think he was mostly a liar and a con-artist. But look at how many\nthousands of people follow Dianetics and Scientology. I think the \nBaker\'s and Swaggert along with several other televangelists lie all\nthe time, but look at the number of follower they have.\n\nAs for lunatics, the best example is Hitler. He was obviously insane,\nhis advisors certainly thought so. Yet he had a whole country entralled\nand came close to ruling all of Europe. How many Germans gave their lives\nfor him? To this day he has his followers.\n\nI\'m just amazed that people still try to use this argument. It\'s just\nso obviously *wrong*.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nEd McCreary ,__o\nedm@twisto.compaq.com _-\\_<, \n"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/\'(*)\n', 'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 29\n\nIn <ednclark.734054731@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:\n\n>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:\n\n>>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards\n>>depression? You can\'t just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation \n>>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and \n>>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis. \n>>At best it\'s a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people \n>>experience. \n\n[...]\n>Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society\n>are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the\n>panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one\n>things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not\n>due solely to sex out of marriage.\n\nNote that I _never_ said that depression and the destruction of the\nnuclear family is due _solely_ to extra-marital sex. I specifically\nsaid that it was "a prime cause" of this, not "the prime cause" or "the\nonly cause" of this -- I recognize that there are probably other factors\ntoo, but I think that extra-marital sex and subsequent destabilization\nof the family is probably a significant factor to the rise in\npsychological problems, including depression, in the West in the 20th\ncentury.\n\n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au \n', 'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: atheist?\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 38\n\nIn article <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk>\nTony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and\n>> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.\n>>\n>> The concept is useless, and I don\'t have to introduce new assumptions\n>> in order to show that.\n>\n>Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don\'t believe gods exist", or\n>"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\n>pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.\n>\n \nFor me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don\'t believe gods exist".\n \nIn other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere\nwith this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly\nconclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the\nPragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist\neven logically false.\n \nA problem with such statements is that one can\'t disprove a subjective god\nby definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even\nmake sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include\nsome form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting\nall. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others.\n \n \n(Deletion)\n>\n>Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?\n>Can it?\n>\n \nHonestly, I don\'t see the problem.\n Benedikt\n', 'From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)\nSubject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!\nIn-Reply-To: mathew\'s message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14: 15:20 +0100\nOrganization: Compaq Computer Corp\n\t<930416.141520.7h1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>\nLines: 12\n\n>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:\n\nm> The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he\'s\nm> finished writing a sequel to the Bible.\n\nAlso, it\'s the 16th now. Can the Feds get him on tax evasion? I don\'t\nremember hearing about him running to the Post Office last night.\n\n--\nEd McCreary ,__o\nedm@twisto.compaq.com _-\\_<, \n"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/\'(*)\n', "From: cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nNntp-Posting-Host: bolero\nOrganization: a2i network\nLines: 26\n\nIn article <1qvibv$b75@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony \nAlicea) writes:\n>\n>In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:\n>\n>>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.\n>\n>OK: So you were a naive teen.\n>\n>>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. \n>\n>Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.\n>But he was born LAST century (1883).\n>\n>>\n>>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. \n>\n>No it isn't. \n>\n>\n\nI guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then, and if so, why is the DA \ninvolved? \n \n-- \nChristopher D. Colvin <cdcolvin@rahul.net>\n",
'From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>\nSubject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nIn-Reply-To: <1pqfic$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>\nNntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1\nOrganization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa\nX-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)\nLines: 32\n\n>DATE: 5 Apr 1993 23:32:28 GMT\n>FROM: Jon Livesey <livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com>\n>\n>In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n>|> \n>|> I don\'t understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic \n>|> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify\n>|> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,\n>|> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_\n>|> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you\'re attempting\n>|> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic\n>|> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than\n>|> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.\n>\n>Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing\n>bad acts, people temporarily become atheists?\n>\n>jon.\n\nOf course B.M. is not incorrect. He is defending Islam. When defending\nIslam against infidels you can say anything and no one will dare criticize\nyou. But when an atheist uses the same argument he is using "petty sarcasm". So\nB.M. can have his "temporary atheists" whenever he needs them and all the\n"temporary atheists" can later say that they were always good Muslims because\nthey never explicitly rejected Islam. \n\nTemporary atheism, temporary Islam, temporary marriage. None of it sticks. \nA teflon religion. How convenient. And so easy to clean up after. But \nthen, what would you expect from a bunch of people who can\'t even agree on \nthe phases of the moon?\n\n\n', "From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)\nSubject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.\nOrganization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada\nLines: 40\n\nIn article <1pqdor$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n>In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:\n>The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and \n>Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany.\n\nI think the problem here is that I pretty much ignored the part\nabout the Jews sightseeing for 2000 years, thinking instead that\nthe important part of what the original poster said was the bit\nabout killing Palestinians.  In retrospect, I can see how the\nsightseeing thing would be offensive to many.  I originally saw\nit just as poetic license, but it's understandable that others\nmight see it differently.  I still think that Ken came on a bit\nstrong though.  I also think that your advice to Masud Khan:\n\n  #Before you argue with someone like Mr Arromdee, it's a good idea to\n  #do a little homework, or at least think.\n\nwas unnecessary.\n\n>That's right.   There have been.    There have also been people who\n>were formally Nazis.   But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere\n>without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the\n>street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly\n>acceptable.\n>\n>Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why\n>don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand?\n\nThroughout all your articles in this thread there is the tacit\nassumption that the original poster was exhibiting casual\nanti-semitism.  If I agreed with that, then maybe your speech\non why this is bad might have been relevant.  But I think you're\nreading a lot into one flip sentence.  While probably not\ntrue in this case, too often the charge of anti-semitism gets\nthrown around in order to stifle legitimate criticism of the\nstate of Israel.\n\nAnyway, I'd rather be somewhere else, so I'm outta this thread.\n--\nDoug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.\n",
'From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: University of Illinois at Urbana\nLines: 36\n\nIn <kmr4.1576.734879396@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:\n\n>In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank \nO\'Dwyer) writes:\n\n>>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad? \n\n> By definition.\n\n\n> great - good - okay - bad - horrible\n\n> << better\n> worse >>\n\n\n> Good is defined as being better than bad.\n\n>---\nHow do we come up with this setup? Is this subjective, if enough people agreed\nwe could switch the order? Isn\'t this defining one unknown thing by another? \nThat is, good is that which is better than bad, and bad is that which is worse\nthan good? Circular?\n\nMAC\n> Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. \n> \n\n--\n****************************************************************\n Michael A. Cobb\n "...and I won\'t raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois\n class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana\n -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu\n \nWith new taxes and spending cuts we\'ll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.\n', "From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: 21 Apr 93 God's Promise in 2 Chronicles 15:2\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 10\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu\n\n\n\tAnd he went out to meet Asa,\n\tAnd said unto him,\n\tHear ye me, Asa,\n\tAnd all Judah and Benjamin;\n\tThe LORD is with you, while ye be with him;\n\tand if ye seek him, he will be found of you;\n\tbut if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.\n\n\t2 Chronicles 15:2\n", 'From: rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker)\nSubject: Odds and Ends\nKeywords: Cheap shots a Christianity\nOrganization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA\nLines: 46\n\nJust a few cheap shots a Christianity:\n\nRiddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem?\nAnswer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.\n\nLimrick:\n\nThere was an archeologist Thostle\nWho found an amazing fossil\nBy the way it was bent\nAnd the knot it the end\n\'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.\n\nJingle:\nChristianity hits the spot\nTwelve Apostles thats a lot\nJesus Christ and a Virgin too\nChristianity\'s the faith for you\n(with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)\n\nRiddle:\nHow many Christians does it take to save a light bulb.\nAnswer: None, only Jesus can save.\n\nAphorism:\nJesus Saves\nMoses Invests\n\nProof that Jesus was Jewish:\n1. He lived at home till he was 33\n2. He went into his fathers business\n3. He thought he mother was a virgin\n4. His mother thought he was God.\n\nQED.\n\nSo long you all\n\nBob Kolker\n"I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people \nthan eternity in Heaven with Christians"\n\n\n-- \n"If you can\'t love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"\n\n', 'From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 117\n\nIn article <16BB112949.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n>In article <115287@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n\n \n>>>>>A brutal system filtered through "leniency" is not lenient.\n\n\n>>>>Huh?\n\n\n>>>How do you rate public floggings or floggings at all? Chopping off the\n>>>hands, heads, or other body parts? What about stoning?\n\n\n>>I don\'t have a problem with floggings, particularly, when the offenders\n>>have been given a chance to change their behavior before floggings are\n>>given. I do have a problem with maiming in general, by whatever means.\n>>In my opinion no-one who has not maimed another should be maimed. In\n>>the case of rape the victim _is_ maimed, physically and emotionally,\n>>so I wouldn\'t have a problem with maiming rapists. Obviously I wouldn\'t\n>>have a problem with maiming murderers either.\n\n\n>May I ask if you had the same opinion before you became a Muslim?\n\n\n\nSure. Yes, I did. You see I don\'t think that rape and murder should\nbe dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for\nleniency\'s sake, apparently think that people should simply be\ntold the "did a _bad_ thing."\n\n\n>And what about the simple chance of misjudgements?\n\nMisjudgments should be avoided as much as possible.\nI suspect that it\'s pretty unlikely that, given my requirement\nof repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely.\n\n \n>>>>>>"Orient" is not a place having a single character. Your ignorance\n>>>>>>exposes itself nicely here.\n\n\n>>>>>Read carefully, I have not said all the Orient shows primitive machism.\n\n\n>>>>Well then, why not use more specific words than "Orient"? Probably\n>>>>because in your mind there is no need to (it\'s all the same).\n\n\n>>>Because it contains sufficient information. While more detail is possible,\n>>>it is not necessary.\n\n\n>>And Europe shows civilized bullshit. This is bullshit. Time to put out\n>>or shut up. You\'ve substantiated nothing and are blabbering on like\n>>"Islamists" who talk about the West as the "Great Satan." You\'re both\n>>guilty of stupidities.\n\n\n>I just love to compare such lines to the common plea of your fellow believers\n>not to call each others names. In this case, to substantiate it: The Quran\n>allows that one beATs one\'s wife into submission. \n\n\nReally? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it.\n\n\n>Primitive Machism refers to\n>that. (I have misspelt that before, my fault).\n \n\nAgain, not all of the Orient follows the Qur\'an. So you\'ll have to do\nbetter than that.\n\n\nSorry, you haven\'t "put out" enough.\n\n \n>>>Islam expresses extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is a subset of sex. It is\n>>>suppressedin Islam. That marial sexis allowed or encouraged in Islam, as\n>>>it is in many branches of Christianity, too, misses the point.\n\n>>>Read the part about the urge for sex again. Religions that run around telling\n>>>people how to have sex are not my piece of cake for two reasons: Suppressing\n>>>a strong urge needs strong measures, and it is not their business anyway.\n\n>>Believe what you wish. I thought you were trying to make an argument.\n>>All I am reading are opinions.\n \n>It is an argument. That you doubt the validity of the premises does not change\n>it. If you want to criticize it, do so. Time for you to put up or shut up.\n\n\n\nThis is an argument for why _you_ don\'t like religions that suppress\nsex. A such it\'s an irrelevant argument.\n\nIf you\'d like to generalize it to an objective statement then \nfine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement\nthat sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments").\n\nThe urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong\nmeasures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so\nstrong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to\nfind a marriage partner.\n\n\n\nGregg\n\n\n\n\n\n\n', "From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)\nOrganization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.\nLines: 8\n\nIn article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,\n>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,\n>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes\n>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not \n>inspired.\n\nDavid Koresh was born in Bethlehem ehh?\n", 'From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)\nSubject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?\nOrganization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.\nLines: 110\n\nJesus:\n\n> "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but\n> men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds\n> are evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will\n> not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be \n> exposed."\n\nKent Sandvik says:\n\n>It seems we are dealing with a black-and-white interpretation.\n>Brian, are you subtly accusing me of evil things because I never\n>saw the light? However, this is even more confusing because\n>I even admit that I don\'t like the situation where I\'m not \n>informed.\n\nBlack and white. A spade is a spade. There is no hidden\nagenda behind this, so stop trying to look for one. It is an\neasy and as straight forward as it reads.\n\nKent, I am not accusing you of evil things. Jesus is accusing you.\nAnd it is not only you that He is accusing. He is accusing everyone.\nMe, you and everyone in the world is guilty. Whether one\nsees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with \nwhether we do evil things. We do them regardless. \n\nJesus uses the word "men". I am included. Jesus is not soloing you out.\nJesus is making a general statement about out the sad state of man.\nChristians are not immuned from doing evil things. A Christian \nis just a person in whom the Holy Spirit indwells. A Christian \ncan see the evil he is doing--because his evil has been brought\nout into the light. Jesus is not saying that just because evil has been\nexposed, that the Christian will stop doing evil. If you haven\'t\nseen Jesus\'s light, your evil deeds simply haven\'t been\nexposed to the His light. You may shed some light on your\nown. Your human spirit shines at perhaps 1 candela. But the\nHoly Spirit shines at a Megacandela. The Holy Spirit can\nshine light into places inside us where we didn\'t even know\nexisted. \n\nSo do you see Jesus\'s point? Christians are not perfect. Nonchristians\nare not perfect. Nonchristians do not want to come into the\nLight of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,\nand they will not like the sight. It is an ugly thing to see how far\nwe have fallen from Jesus\'s perspective. Do you think you want to\nknow how really ignorant you are? Do you think Brian Kendig wants\nto know? Do you think I want to know? Ego verses the truth,\nwhich do you choose?\n\n>I\'m watching the news about a man who saw the light, and made\n>sure that the 19 children burned to death as part of his insight\n>into the light. I don\'t think the world is that simple. And if \n>you act in such ways when you are enlighted, then I\'m a happy\n>man and I pray I will never receive such \'light\'.\n\nAnd I watched Koresh too, an imposter who thought he saw the light, \nwho made sure that the 19 children burned to death, sadly, as part\nof his delusion. It is even sadder that the people who\ndied with him chose to die with them, and that ignorance was\ntheir downfall to death. \n\nAnd Kent, don\'t you bury yourself underneath a rock with an\nexcuse like bringing up Koresh--as if Koresh actually had truth in him.\nDavid Koresh was no light and no excuse for\nyou to stay away from the real Jesus Christ. David Koresh, who\nclaimed to be Jesus, was a fraud. It was obvious. David Koresh\nwas born in America. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Koresh wasn\'t\neven a good imposter having missed an obvious point as that.\n\nJesus warned of such imposters in the end-times. David\nKoresh wasn\'t anything new to Jesus. Jesus told us to be\naware of imposters 2000 years ago. \n\nSo the next time an imposter makes a scene and claims to\nbe Jesus. Ask the obvious. Where were you born? Was your\nmother\'s name Mary? If the Branch Davidians asked that\nsimple question, they would have labeled Koresh a liar\nright from the start. The wouldn\'t have followed Koresh.\nThey wouldn\'t have died. But look what happened. Their\nignorance cost them their lives. Their choice to be ignorant\ncost them a lot.\n\nKent, since you studied the Bible under Lutheranism, do you\nnot remember what tactic Satan used to try to tempt Jesus? \nDid not Satan quote the Bible out of context? Do you\nremember what tactic the serpent of Genesis used to tempt\nEve? Did he not misquote God? What Satan used on Eve and succeeded, \nwas the same ploy he tried on Jesus. But in Jesus\'s case,\nJesus rebuked Satan back with the Bible _in_ context. It\ndidn\'t work with Jesus. \n\nDoes what Satan did to Eve in the Garden and what Satan\ntried to do with Jesus in the desert remind you of what\nKoresh did to his followers? Who did Koresh emulate?\nWho was Koresh\'s teacher? Koresh did to his followers what\nSatan did to Eve. Did not Koresh kill his followersr? Did\nnot Satan cause Adam and Eve to die as well? Did not\nthe cult followers believe Koresh even though they knew\nthe real Christ was born in Bethlehem? Did not Eve\nchoose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil despite knowing that it would cause her death? God\nheld them all responsible--deceiver and the rebeller. None \nof them had an excuse. \n\nAs opposed to the Branch Davidians, we have a second chance.\nFollow Jesus and he will escort us to the path of eternal life.\nDon\'t follow Jesus, and you stand condemned already, for like\nthe Branch Davidian complex, your house is already on fire.\nSatan, Adam and Eve have already set it ablaze. It is just\na slow burn, but it is burning nevertheless.\n', 'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 27\n\nIn article <1qjfnv$ogt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank\nO\'Dwyer) wrote:\n> (1) Does the term "hero-worship" mean anything to you?  \n\nYes, worshipping Jesus as the super-saver is indeed hero-worshipping\nof the grand scale. Worshipping Lenin that will make life pleasant\nfor the working people is, eh, somehow similar, or what.\n \n> (2) I understand that gods are defined to be supernatural, not merely\n>     superhuman.\nThe notion of Lenin was on the borderline of supernatural insights\ninto how to change the world, he wasn\'t a communist God, but he was\nthe man who gave presents to kids during Christmas.\n \n> #Actually, I agree. Things are always relative, and you can\'t have \n> #a direct mapping between a movement and a cause. However, the notion\n> #that communist Russia was somewhat the typical atheist country is \n> #only something that Robertson, Tilton et rest would believe in.\n> \n> Those atheists were not True Unbelievers, huh?   :-)\n\nDon\'t know what they were, but they were fanatics indeed.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n',
"From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)\nSubject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?\nOrganization: University of Virginia\nLines: 19\n\nCOCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes\n\n>it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the \n>shame of capture and persecution.\n\nThis group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy\nand to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the\nride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they\nwere, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the\nauthorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind\nhim and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play\nthe tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate\nthis. \n\n--\nPeter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!\nAcademic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...\nUniversity of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.\npmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho\n",
'Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)\nFrom: SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET)\nDistribution: world\nOrganization: Wesleyan University\nNntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com\'s message of 16 Apr 93 16:37:29 MSTLines: 34\nLines: 34\n\njbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:   >\n  ( in <1993Apr16.163729.867@batman.bmd.trw.com> )\n  ( responding to Dave "First With Official A.A Nickname" Fuller )\n \n[ ... ]\n> The death penalty IS a deterrent, Dave.  The person executed will never\n> commit a crime again.  Guaranteed.      [ ... ]\n\nThat means that it is an effective anti-recidivism measure.  It does\nnot say that it deters an individual from committing a capital crime\nin the first place.\n\nThe true question is whether the threat of death is likely to actually\nstop one from murdering.  (Or commiting treason -- are there any other\ncapital crimes anywhere in the USA?)  That is, if there were no death\npenalty, would its introduction deter a would-be criminal from\ncommitting her/his crime?  I doubt it.\n\nThis is only the first step.  Even if it were a strong deterrent\n(short of being a complete deterrent) I would reject it.  For what\nabout the case of the innocent executed?\n\nAnd even if we could eliminate this possibility, I would reject the\ndeath penalty as immoral. This makes me something of a radical on\nthe issue, although I think there are many opponents of captial\npunishment who agree with me, but who find the innocent executed the\nstrongest argument to make.\n\nI would, if magically placed in charge, facilitate state-aided suicide\nfor criminals who have life-sentences.  This could be a replacement\nfor capital punishment.  Those who don\'t want to live the rest of\ntheir lives in jail would always have this option.\n\n -- Scott Sauyet                 ssauyet@eagle.wesleyan.edu\n',
"From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)\nSubject: Re: Bill Conner:\nNntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu\nOrganization: Okcforum Unix Users Group\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]\nLines: 6\n\n\nCould you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position\nstatement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my\nname, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what.\n\nBill\n",
'From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: EIT\nLines: 29\nNNTP-Posting-Host: kyle.eitech.com\n\nIn article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n>In article <sandvik-140493230024@sandvik-kent.apple.com# sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank\n>#O\'Dwyer) wrote:\n>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.\n>#\n>#You now pushed down the defintion of objectivity into realm of\n>#objective values. So you need to explain that as well, as well\n>#as the objective sub-parts, the objective atoms, quarks...\n>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.\nYou keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it\nmeans.\nPerhaps you should explain what you think "science has it\'s basis\nin values" means. The reason why people DO science is that\nthey value it\'s results. That does not mean that science has\nit\'s basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop\nvaluing my privacy.\n\n>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them\n>from subjective values, before we go any further.\nSee above.\n\n-Ekr\n\n\n-- \nEric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com\n             Would you buy used code from this man?\n        \n',
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: Burden of Proof\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 41\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:\n>Actually, both are positive arguments.  ("Positive" may not be the best\n>description here due to possible misunderstanding, but it\'s the term you\n>used.)  Positive arguments/assertions can be both affirmative (i.e. God \n>exists) and negative (i.e. God does not exist).  Both carry an equal \n>burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea\n>is true.  The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of\n>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.\n>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she\n>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who\n>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"\n>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm\n>foundation of logical argument, but because it\'s proponents simply\n>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden\n>of proof.  When you don\'t assert anything, you don\'t have to prove\n>anything.  That\'s where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its\n>strength is also its Achilles\' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one\n>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it\'s virtually\n>worthless.  IMO, of course.\n\n\tSo, if I were to assert that there are no thousand year old \ninvisible pink unicorns* residing in my walls, I need to support this with \nevidence? I think the _lack_ of evidence shall suffice.\n\n\n\t* Who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing \nBeethoven\'s 45th symphony backwards.\n---\n\n        "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have \n         forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh\'s \n         armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with \n         poison to quiet them."\n\n        -\n        \n        "And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, in was very \n         good."\n\n         Genesis 1:31\n\n',
'From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism\nOrganization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 27\nNNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu\nIn-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>\n\nsnm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.\n\nThere are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both\natheists AND theists.  I\'m sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist\nside but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at\ngenocide.  Perhaps, since I\'m a bit weak on history, somone here would like\nto give a list of wars caused/led by theists?  I can think of a few (Hitler\nclaimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would\nprobably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement\nis.\n\n> Peace,\n\nOn a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace".  Perhaps you\nshould take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their\nbeliefs?\n\n> Bobby Mozumder\n\nNanci\n\n.........................................................................\nIf you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me\nemail (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):\nLying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.\n\n',
'From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\nOrganization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century\nLines: 14\n\nbissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:\n\n>\tNiether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn \n>to someone who was crazy.\n\nFind an encyclopedia. Volume H. Now look up Hitler, Adolf. He had\nmany more people than just Germans enamoured with him.\n\nP.\n-- \n moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke\nclive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception\njames trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM\n brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza \n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 27\n\nIn article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu\n(Ken Arromdee) wrote:\n> \n> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire\n> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.\n> \n> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been\n> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and\n> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly\n> disinterested observers.\n\nWell, looking at the videos it seems that this fire started in various\nplaces at the same time, which would indicate that this was a planned\naction. I'm sure FBI and BATF didn't *deliberately* start a possible\nfire, having a sniper kill Korresh would have been a far easier \nmethod. Looking at the careful operation, and use of tear gas\nthat as I know don't start fires, it is less likely that this \nwas the case.\n\nSorry, but my bets are on fanatical people keen to start\nArmageddon -- theirs.\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re)\nSubject: A fundamental contradiction (was: A visit from JWs)\nReply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA\nOrganization: MegaByte Digital Telecommunications\nLines: 35\n\njbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:\n\n>"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious\n>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently\n>of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".\n\nThe above is probably not the most representative paragraph, but I\nthought I\'d hop on, anyway...\n\nWhat strikes me as self-contradicting in the fable of Lucifer\'s\nfall - which, by the way, I seem to recall to be more speculation\nthan based on biblical text, but my ex RCism may be showing - is\nthat, as Benedikt pointed out, Lucifer had perfect nature, yet he\nhad the free will to "choose" evil.  But where did that choice come\nfrom?\n\nWe know from Genesis that Eve was offered an opportunity to sin by a\ntempter which many assume was Satan, but how did Lucifer discover,\ninvent, create, call the action what you will, something that God\nhad not given origin to?\n\nAlso, where in the Bible is there mention of Lucifer\'s free will?\nWe make a big fuss about mankind having free will, but it strikes me\nas being an after-the-fact rationalisation, and in fact, like\nsalvation, not one that all Christians believe in identically.\n\nAt least in my mind, salvation and free will are very tightly\ncoupled, but then my theology was Roman Catholic...\n\nStill, how do theologian explain Lucifer\'s fall?  If Lucifer had\nperfect nature (did man?) how could he fall?  How could he execute an\nact that (a) contradicted his nature and (b) in effect cause evil to\nexist for the first time?\n-- \nLucio de Re (lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA) - tab stops at four.\n',
'Organization: Penn State University\nFrom: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>\nSubject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding\n <sandvik-140493233557@sandvik-kent.apple.com> <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu>\n <syt5br_@rpi.edu> <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>\nLines: 41\n\nIn article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu\n(Peter Nyikos) says:\n>\n>In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:\n>\n>>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)\n>writes:\n>\n>>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT\n>>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED\n>>>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction\n>>>coverage if ONE doesn\'t WANT that kind of coverage).\n>\n>>You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health\n>>insurance.\n>\n>Are you any less stunningly ignorant?  Have you ever heard of life\n>insurance premiums some companies give in which nonsmokers are charged\n>much smaller premiums than smokers?\n>\n>Not to mention auto insurance being much cheaper for women under 25 than\n>for men under 25, because women on the average drive more carefully\n>than most men--in fact, almost as carefully as I did before I was 25.\n\nAs many people have mentioned, there is no reason why insurers could not\noffer a contract without abortion services for a different premium.\nThe problem is that there is no guarantee that this premium would be\nlower for those who chose this type of contract.  Although you are\nremoving one service, that may have feedbacks into other types of covered\ncare which results in a net increase in actuarial costs.\n\nFor an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible\nto ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you\nadd preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total\npremium may fall.\n\nThese words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear\n**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any\n  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries\n    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make\nD. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.\n',
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: ? (was Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?))\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 13\nDistribution: world,public\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\nKeywords: Time for a consistency check, bub.\n\nsdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:\n\n>>Of course, if at some later time we think that the death penalty\n>>*is* cruel or unusual, it will be outlawed.  But at the present,\n>>most people don\'t seem to think this way.\n>*This* from the same fellow who speaks of an "objective" or "natural"\n>morality.  I suppose that if the majority decides slavery is OK, then\n>it is no longer immoral?\n\nI did not claim that our system was objective.\n\n\nkeith\n',
'From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)\nLines: 22\nReply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu\n\n\nIn a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:\n\n>\n>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the\n>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is\n>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  \n>\n\n\tJust wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?\nWarning: There is no point in arguing who\'s "legit" and who\'s not. *WHICH*\nGolden Dawn are you talking about?\n\n\tJust for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)\nI am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas\nRosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,\n\n\tAny takers? :-)\n\nFraternally,\n\nTony\n',
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 16\n\nIn article <1993Apr14.132813.16343@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,\ndarice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:\n> Anyhow, on the basis of the apparent success of Islamic banks, it seems\n> to me that the statement that a zero-interest economy cannot survive in\n> today's world may be a bit premature.\n\nI'm sure zero-intested economical systems survive on a small-scale,\nco-ops is not an Islamic invention, and we have co-operatives working\nall around the world. However such systems don't stand the corruption\nof a large scale operation. Actually, nothing could handle human\ngreed, IMHO. Not even Allah :-).\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
"From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)\nSubject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword\nOrganization: sdf public access Unix, Dallas TX 214/436-3281\nLines: 39\n\nIn article <19APR199310484591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:\n>Now that chemical-warfare and the use of juggernauts have been\n>used against innocents -- so likewise are those involved subject\n>to their own judgments. The same goes for those who lead others \n>into captivity -- whether behind strands of barbed-wire, or webs \n>of deceit.\n>\n\nYeah. Innocents. People who hoard $250K worth of high-caliber automatic weapons\nand kill law-enforcement agents really fit the bill here. The only innocents\nwere the 20+ children who were prevented from leaving a burning building by\ntheir self-appointed messiah-following parents. A burning STARTED by the \nDavidians.\n\n\n>Such is the patience and faith of the saints.\n>\n>So let them continue -- for the one-who-rewards them according\n>to what their works shall be -- comes quickly. \n>\n>The evidence continues to mount, which all seems to follow \n>step-by-step quite logically to me. \n>\n> |\n>-- J --\n> |\n> | stephen\n>\n\nIs this subject line a veiled threat against U.S. Government agents or possibly\nExecutive office leadership (i.e. Clinton)? I've considered you a bit of a loon,\nbefore, Stephen, I guess this pretty much confirms it. \n\nNice religion you have there. The only ones who should be killed are those who\ndon't agree with us. Sheesh.\n\n\n-- \n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've thyat@sdf.lonestar.org suffered quite enough, thank you! Arlington, TX Help! I'm being repressed! -M.Python -------------------------------\n\n-------------------------------------------------\n", 'From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)\nSubject: Re: The Problem of Satan (used to be: islamic authority over women)\nOrganization: University of Nebraska at Omaha\nLines: 103\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.165233.1007@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu \n (Stephen McIntyre) writes:\n\n> Of course, Bobby then states that Satan has no free will, that\n> he does as God wants him to. This brings up a host of\n> paradoxes: is God therefore evil; do I have free will\n> or is God directing me also; if God is evil, which part\n> of his infinite self is good and which is evil; etc.?\n\n> I would like for once a solid answer, not a run-about.\n\n# I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don\'t agree\n# with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force.\n# I wrote:\n\n>> The belief to which I ascribe is that evil is not a creation;\n>> rather, it is "the absence of good." This fits with all the\n>> logic about things having dual use: e.g., a knife can be used\n>> to sculpt and it can be used to kill. Like entropy, evil is\n>> seen in this view as neither force nor entity. Satan is,\n>> therefore, metaphorical. In fact, there are several verses\n>> of the Holy Qur\'an which appear to support this view and several\n>> Traditions as well.\n>\n>> For example, there is a Tradition that food should never be left open\n>> on a shelf or table overnight, lest "Satan" enter it. It appears\n>> that this is a reference to as yet undiscovered germs; thus, the\n>> evil effect of spoiled food is described as "Satan."\n\n>But there are many examples of Satan personified. Which am I\n> to believe?\n\n# And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the\n# Holy Qur\'an, the Bible, etc. There have been times in the spiritual\n# and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical\n# descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally\n# and that *worked* for the time. As I mentioned in the Tradition\n# cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory\n# about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil"\n# which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."\n\n Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is\n metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not\n the same way?\n\n# The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane\n# in human language is something like describing "color" to a person\n# who has been blind from birth. You may want to read the book\n# FLATLAND (if you haven\'t already) or THE DRAGON\'S EGG. The first\n# is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con-\n# cept...\n\n[some deleted for space saving]\n\n# When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe\n# another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then\n# such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be\n# necessary. The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference\n# and meaning for the reader/listener. But, like all models, a compro-\n# mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness\n# of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all\n# crippled. But what else can you do?\n\n This is why I asked the above. How would you then\n know God exists as a spirit or being rather than\n just being metaphorical? I mean, it\'s okay to say\n "well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you\n have to justify this belief AND justify that God is\n not some metaphor for something else.\n\n I say this because there are many, many instances of\n Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in \n the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the\n New Testament Gospels). In the same way, God too is\n described as a being (or spirit.) How am I to know\n one is metaphorical and not the other.\n\n Further, belief in God isn\'t a bar to evil. Let\'s\n consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were\n metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe\n in God to justify this belief. Again, we have a \n case where someone does believe in God, but by\n religious standards, they are "evil." If Bobby\n does see this, let him address this question also.\n\n[deleted some more on "metaphor"]\n\n>> Obviously more philosophizing on this issue is possible, but I\'m\n>> not sure that the readers of this newsgroup would want to delve\n>> into religious interpretation further. However, if anyone wishes\n>> to discuss this, I\'m certainly willing (either off line - e-mail - or\n>> on line - posting).\n\nStephen\n\n _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist\n _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian\n _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality\n _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility\n_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...\n\n\n-- \n', 'From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)\nSubject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God\'s Promise in 1 John 1: 7\nOrganization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.\nLines: 66\n\nBrian Kendig writes:\n\n> Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given\n> it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is\n> the blood that makes atonement for the soul.\n>\n>The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business. It\n>makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"\n>moral wrongdoing.\n\nBrian K., guess what? You missed the point. On a scale from cold to\nhot, you are at 0 degrees Kelvin.\n\n>I know about sanctification. I\'ve been taught all about it in Sunday\n>school, catechism class, and theology classes. But even after all\n>that, I still can\'t accept it. Maybe I\'m still not understanding it,\n>or maybe I\'m just understanding it all too well.\n\nThen as you understand it, what is it?\n\n>From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent\n>man is wrong.\n\nYes. I agree with that. But what does that have to do with Jesus?\nPunishment you say? Jesus did not regard his death as punishment. \n\n>I\'ve tried repeatedly over the course of several years\n>to accept it, but I just can\'t. \n\nGood. I wouldn\'t either--not the way you understand it. \n\n>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,\n>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.\n>Be warned, however, that I\'ve heard all the most common arguments\n>before, and they just don\'t convince me.\n\nAsk Jesus himself. He himself said why in John 12:23-32. It\nisn\'t a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for\na persuasive argument. Read Jesus\'s own reply to your\nquestion.\n\nJesus gives more reasons in John 16:7. But one obvious reason\nwhy Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with\nhis punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that\nwe would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27). The fact\nthat Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise\nfrom the dead. It is an obvious point. Do not overlook it.\nWithout this obvious point, I would have no hope\nand my faith would be vanity.\n\nWhy did Jesus suffer in his death? Again, ask Jesus. Jesus\nsays why in John 15:18-25. That\'s no mystery either. "The\nworld hates him without reason." It is a direct proclamation\nof how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we\nneed a Saviour.\n\nAnd why can\'t you, Brian K., accept this? How can you? "The\nworld cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows\nhim." (John 14:17). The animosity and the lack of knowledge\nthat comes out in your twistings of Robert\'s daily verses is\nvery convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.\nI pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of\nknowledge. I am not perfect either. But regardless of that, I thank\nGod that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I\'d also be\nbumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very\nPerson who created me and who loves me.\n', "Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?\nFrom: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nOrganization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.\nLines: 26\n\nIn article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:\n>\n>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we \n>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than \n>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.\n>\n\n I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people\n in prison for life.\n\n That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but\n also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability\n to commit the same crimes again.\n\n In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps\n it's not because we're not executing these people, but because\n we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n", 'From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nLines: 32\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\n\nforgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:\n> From article <1qcq3f$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com \n> (Jon Livesey):\n> > If there is a Western ethic against infanticide, why\n> > are so many children dying all over the world?\n> \n> The majority of the world isn\'t "Western".\n\nSuperficially a good answer, but it isn\'t that simple.  An awful lot of the\nstarvation and poverty in the world is directly caused by the economic\npolicies of the Western countries, as well as by the diet of the typical\nWesterner.  For instance, some third-world countries with terrible\nmalnutrition problems export all the soya they can produce -- so that it can\nbe fed to cattle in the US, to make tender juicy steaks and burgers.  They\nhave to do this to get money to pay the interest on the crippling bank loans\nwe encouraged them to take out.  Fund-raising for Ethiopia is a truly bizarre\nidea; instead, we ought to stop bleeding them for every penny they\'ve got.\n\nPerhaps it\'s more accurate to say that there\'s a Western ethic against\nWestern infanticide.  All the evidence suggests that so long as the children\nare dying in the Third World, we couldn\'t give a shit.  And that goes for the\nsupposed "Pro-Life" movement, too.  They could save far more lives by\nfighting against Third World debt than they will by fighting against\nabortion.  Hell, if they\'re only interested in fetuses, they could save more\nof those by fighting for human rights in China.\n\nAnd besides, Suzanne\'s answer implies that non-Western countries lack this\nethic against infanticide.  Apart from China, with its policy of mandatory\nforced abortion in Tibet, I don\'t believe this to be the case.\n\n\nmathew\n',
'Subject: Re: Who\'s next? Mormons and Jews?\nFrom: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>\nOrganization: Brigham Young University\nLines: 148\n\n\nIsaac Kuo (saackuo@spam.berkeley.edu) writes:\n\n#In article <93109.231733ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM#.B\n#>Gedaliah Friedenberg (friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu) writes:\n#>As a Latter-day Saint, I found John\'s statement *not at all* ludicrous...\n#>\n#>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,\n#>governor Boggs, issued his so-called "Mormon extermination order."  The\n#>only crime ("illegal activity") the Latter-day Saints had committed, was\n#>their religious affiliation, their anti-slave stance (Missouri still\n#>allowed slave practices), and their growing numbers/influence in Missouri.\n#>\n#>I guess the Mormons "got what they deserved," because they refused to bow\n#>to the will of (corrupt and evil) secular authorities. This "disobedience"\n#>brought upon them persecution, murder, and finally forced expulsion from\n#>their lands and settlements...\n#\n#It is significant to remember that these secular positions were held by\n#"average" people, and that at the time, almost all Americans were pretty\n#homogeonously Christian. It was largely the mainstream Christian\'s disgust\n#at such practices as polygamy which resulted in their irrational hatred.\n\nTrue, but that is exactly the "problem": the Mormon extermination order\nwas issued not just by a Christian, it was ALLOWED under the Constitution\nof the United States, which was instituted precisely to prevent incidents\nlike this "order" from occurring in the first place...  As I indicated in\nan earlier posting, your "irrational hatred" is clearly evidenced by\nindividuals like Robert Weiss (who could have been Gov. Boggs\' Lieutenant;\nhe would have fitted right in, drewling et al), and seems a modern-day\noccurrence, based on results (slander, persecution, misrepresentation,\nlies, denying Mormons representation in their own user group, etc. etc.\n\nIn intent and purpose, what really has changed?\n\n#The situation is not entirely different today.  Many irrational feelings\n#and beliefs are justified through religion.  I don\'t think most of them\n#are started because of religion, but religion certainly helps justify and\n#perpetuate prejudices and practices by providing a neat justification\n#which discourages critical thought.\n\nTrue, as evidenced by numerous examples, as I am sure you\'re aware.\n\n#>In any regard, Mormon history alone indicates that secular authorities (and\n#>I don\'t even discuss how Uthan\'s were suckered into allowing part of their\n#>lands in becoming nerve-gas and atomic bomb testing grounds...) is far from\n#>being trusted or righteous.  Have things really changed for the better?  I\n#>may be a born cynic, but I have NO reason whatsoever that such has been the\n#>case. In the early 1980s, I believe, the late President Kimball (lds church\n#>leader) strongly protested federal attempts to locate the MX-"Peace Keeper"\n#>missile maze from being built in Utah (yet another "inspired" decision from\n#secular authorities).  Fortunately, his opposition was influential enough\n#for the feds to back off.\n#\n#Do you mean that the "secular authorities" are some continuous group of\n#people with the common and uninterrupted goal of harrassing/eradicating the\n#Mormons?  Do you honestly believe that the main reason for using Utah for\n#nuclear testing etc.. was to "get them thar Mormons"?  And what about the\n#majority of Uthan\'s who aren\'t Mormons?  You seem to be searching for enemy\n ^^^^^^^^\n(Correction: the majority of Utahn\'s ARE Mormon (60-70% I believe, up to a\n 100% in many cities and settlements throughout the Western states.)\n\n#conspiracies.  It is paranoid to believe that everything that affects you\n#badly must have been done primarily for that purpose.\n\nWhat I mean is that secular authorities are to be watched, as we believe\nthat Satan has been given some power and dominion over the earth to divert\ntruth, judgment, and justice.  In addition, we believe that the adversary\nhas power to influence the unjust and idolatrous (greed for money would be\na good example) in order to bring about persecution, war, oppression, and\nevil combinations.  As an intelligent being, don\'t you suppose that the\ndestroyer would yield his influence foremost on those with political power?\n\nAs far as Utah is concerned, what I pointed out were some horrible examples\nof environmental nightmares imposed upon by secular authorities, which have\nbrought death, disease, (i.e. the "downwinders") and environmental contami-\nnation.  I am hardly "paranoid," I am just not "expecting" too much from a\nsecular government that may not share our values and faith, and which indeed\n(as Gov. Boggs et al.) may be out to harm and destroy us.  As a matter of\nfact, prophecies in my church indicate that in future years, (global)\npersecution against Mormons will so increase in intensity and scope, that\n(paraphrasing) "all those who wish to escape persecution and murder must\nflee to Zion."  Zion (the "pure in heart") will be re-established in those\ndays, and it AIN\'T our current secular authorities who will rule over it...\n\n#>...  David Koresh did NOT pose a great\n#>threat to the federal authorities or the security of this nation, and with\n#>John, I too wonder who or what\'s next...\n#\n#I personally feel that we should try to stop anyone who is a threat to the\n#life of even one person.  Sure, he did not pose a threat to the security of\n#this nation.  But he did pose a threat to the lives of his followers.  That\n#much is definite.\n\nHmmm.  "definite" by whom?  --Until such has been established beyond reason-\nable doubt, this alleged "threat" may have been less than the "threat"\nimposed upon him and his followers by the BATF and FBI...\n\n#>Who killed who?  What constitutional right did the ATF officers have to\n#>invade upon private land and to force themselves into the compound?\n#>What REALLY caused the "murder" of the little children?  Could it be that\n#>the ATF/FBI presence has any bearing upon the events?  How would you\n#>interpret the Mt. Masada events?  --Blame the Jews?  (What the heck did\n#>the Romans do there anyway?  What business did the ATF/FBI has in Waco,\n#>Texas???)  The Branch Davidians NEVER posed any threat to society.\n#\n#This is like asking who REALLY caused the deaths of the Israeli Olympic\n#team in 1976?  In that case, the police botched the job as well.  But to\n#lay a heavier burden on them than the terrorists would be a terrible\n#mistake.  I think the same sort of reasoning applies in this case.\n#Certainly, if David Koresh chose any peaceful option, the ATF and FBI\n#would have complied.  The responsibility is more his than the authorities.\n\nCome now, at issue is in how much the authorities escalated an otherwise\npeaceful stand-off: "let\'s get it over with, and "force" David Koresh to\ncome out???"  --By gassing them???  Were they naive, or what?  They played\nright into the hands of an apocalyptic-thinking individual (he had prepared\nhis people for this eventuality for years), and not *one* firetruck or plan\nwas in place to deal with this scenario???  I feel that the authorities\nhad "some" responsibility to protect their own citizens, even if they were\nreligious zealots, and guilty of ... not paying a $200 gun license???\n(Has the BATF become an extension of the local tax-collectors?)\n\n#>David Koresh, no doubt, will be described as the "evil" guy (by the\n#>executioners), while the actions of all those "valiant and brave" officers\n#\n#Characterizing the ATF/FBI as executioners is inaccurate and unfair. In\n#order to be an executioner, the least one must have done is have the intent\n#to kill.\n\nQue?? --Intrusion into private property with semi\'s, loaded with life\nammunition, isn\'t that implicit "intent (or at least "prepared") to kill"?\nI ask you, would the BATF warrant stand up in a civil court of justice?\nI do not mind if criminals (such as dangerous drug lords) are brought to\njustice, but escalating events to the point of allowing to, if not compli-\ncity with, the destruction of a people?\n\n#--\n#*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu) * _____\n#*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* ______//_o_\\\\__\n#* For us, it is a mundane and functional item. For you, *(==(/___________\n#* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen * \\==\\/ \\\n\n\nCasper C. Knies isscck@byuvm.bitnet\nBrigham Young University isscck@vm.byu.edu\nUCS Computer Facilities\n', "From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)\nSubject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!\nOrganization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.\nLines: 38\n\n\nIn article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org>, jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:\n|> Leviticus 21:9\n|> And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the\n|> whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.\n|> \n|> Deuteronomy 22:20-21\n|> ...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall\n|> bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the\n|> city shall stone her with stones that she die...\n|> \n|> Deuteronomy 22:22\n|> If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall\n|> both of them die...\n|> \n|> Deuteronomy 22:23-24\n|> If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her\n|> in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the\n|> gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...\n|> \n|> Deuteronomy 22:25\n|> BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,\n|> and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.\n\nThese laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had\nexpressly set apart from the rest of the world. The Israelites were a\ndirect witness to God's existence. To disobey God after KNOWing that God\nis real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.\nRemember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to \nGod's chosen people. But Jesus has changed all of that. We are living in the\nage of grace. Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death. There is\nrepentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. And not just\nfor a few chosen people. Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile\nalike.\n\nGod be with you,\n\nMalcolm Lee :)\n", 'From: jeffj@yang.earlham.edu (ChaOs)\nSubject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)\nOrganization: Honest Bob\'s Used Toaster Emporium\nLines: 196\n\nIn article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:\n> Hi all,\n> \n> I\'m going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would\n> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of\n> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on\n> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present\n> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of\n> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  \n\nFirst off, let me congratulate you for not posting a flame about "You sick\nperverts, you are immoral, you are all going to hell.", which seems to be the\nusual "religious" post found on the alt.sex.* hierarchy.  Hopefully, you won\'t\nget flamed, either.\n\nYou will, however, be argued with.  I personally think that your project is\nbuilt on unsteady ground.\n\nFirst, I do not believe that there is any way to find an "objective morality". \nMorality and value are inherently subjective - they represent the beliefs of a\nperson or a group of people.  They can be widely held, perhaps even\noverwhelmingly held, but they are never and _can_ never be objective.\n\n> Assumptions:\n> \n> (1) A Christian bedrock assumption that all that is True, comes\n> Truly from God. \n> \n> (2) Regarding alt.sex.stories.  While perhaps even from an\n> objective standpoint, the majority of its material is indeed\n> repugnant (you come to this conclusion quite quickly when you\n> start thinking about analyzing its material like this), some of\n> it reflects some fairly profound needs in people as well as some\n> truths -- and deserve to be pointed out.\n\nSecond, I do not accept the assumptions that you make here.  If, as you say,\nyou are trying to be objective, then why accept a morality to begin with by\nusing the Christian Bible?  You\'re defeating your own purpose by doing so.\n \n> In the long run, the advantage of making such a literary/moral\n> analysis is that it will save band-width between Christians and\n> non mutually flaming each other about the moral acceptability of\n> the stuff on these (pornographic) groups.\n\nThird, call me a pessimist, but you won\'t stop the flamage.  There will always\nbe people who pop upin alt.sex.* to tell us how sick and twisted and evil we\nall are.  Just out of curiosity, do alt.sex readers show up unprovoked in the\nreligion groups to tell you all that you are narrow-minded, censoring,\noverbearing totalitarianists?\n \n> Basically, there should not be a dissonance between a "Christian"\n> morality and a "non-Christian" one.  Either there is value in a\n> particular work, or there is not whether one is a Christian or\n> not.\n\nHm.  Let me provide an example.  Four people get together over dinner, to\ndiscuss morality: you, me, a rather conservative Moslem, and a sociopath.  I\nstart off by saying that I think it\'s immoral to force people to have sex with\nyou.  You agree, but also say that it is immoral to have sex with someone of\nyour own gender.  (Just a note: I really don\'t know your views on\nhomosexuality, I am just using this as a common view of morality for the\npurposes of this example.)  The Moslem says that it is immoral for women to\nhave their faces uncovered.\n\nThe sociopath, who has become bored, kills all three of us and eats us, but\nfeels no guilt because he has done nothing wrong morally in his own mind. \n                                                                         \n> In support for the first assumption:\n> \n> The Christian scriptures say this:\n\n\t(Evidence deleted)\n\nI\'m not going to accept your evidence for this.  You ask us to accept "The Word\nof God" that everything good comes from God.  This is only a valid argument for\na person who shares your beliefs.\n\nStill, I must say that cataloging the major themes and motifs in erotica could\nbe interesting for other reasons than yours, so good luck with this next part.\n\n>                                                                        \n>              **************************************\n> \n> NOW THEN what are some of the major themes/motifs in the\n> pornographic literature on places like alt.sex.stories?  These\n> are some that I\'ve been able to identify.  Please add/comment on\n> them.\n> \n> \n> Motif #1 -- THE MALE-CINDERELLA.  \n> \n> In so many of the stories there is expressed a feeling of\n> alienation and worthlessness on the part of the writer or\n> otherwise protagonist of the story with regard to the object (the\n> other person) of his/her desire. Often a story involves a\n> protagonist who (on the surface) is quite average (but underneath\n> usually has an enormous dick), who desires to in some way to gain\n> access (in a definitely sexual way) to the other person who\n> he/she confesses is far more desireable than he/she is and who\n> indeed seems "to walk between the rain-drops."   \n\nHmmm...do I detect just a wee bit of condescence here?\n                                                      \n> \n> Motif #2 -- A CELEBRATION OF (INDEED PREOCCUPATION WITH) BEAUTY.\n                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\t\t\t\tnot very objective. \n\n> The vast majority of pornographic literature deals with beauty,\n> be it innocence (somehow about to be lost), grace, or simply\n> physical beauty.  And generally, most people Christian or non\n> will say that beauty is good. \n\nOne could construe this to mean that beautiful people are better, or "more\ngood" than non-beautiful people.  I would hope that people relize that this is\nnot necessarily true.\n                     \n> \n> Motif #3 -- ONE\'S DICK IS ONE\'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION.  \n                    ^^^^\n      Might I suggest the word "penis"? It seems more in line with the tone of\nyour post. \n          \n>      Blessed are those who are well-hung, for they shall get\n>      laid. -- from what would thus be a revised Matthew 5 :-).\n> \n\nBravo!  I respect you and your sense of humor, sir. \n\n> \n> Motif #4 -- SEX AS AN EXPRESSION OF SINCERE GIVING.  \n>                                                  \n> There is, often enough, a clear desire on the part of the\n> protagonist, to give (definitely sexual) pleasure to the object\n> (person) of his/her desires.\n                                                 \nYes, and this theme is usually what the better stories are about.  However,\nthey are not always selfish - I could point to examples in the work of Elf\nSternberg, for example.\n\n> \n> Motif #5 -- ALT.SEX.STORIES DESCRIBES A SEX WHICH IS COMPLETELY\n> REMOVED FROM THE REALM OF "TRANSMITTING LIFE"  \n> \n> So removed is sex from its procreative dimension on\n> alt.sex.stories, that one begins to wonder why sex even involves\n> ejaculation, as in the context described in pornography it serves\n> then no real purpose.  \n\nIt serves the same purpose as it does in pornographic movies: it affirms the\nvirility of the male involved, as well as assuring the reader that he (the\ncharacter) has orgasmed.                      \n\n> The Whole Picture [TM] is probably very well described by the\n> Catholic teaching on this: Of the husband and wife, in an act of\n> total mutual self-giving in the sexual union, cooperating with\n> God in opening themselves up for the transmission of new life\n> (cf. Humane Vitae).  \n\nYour Whole Picture [TM] unfortunately only applies to people who accept your\nchurch.\n         \nIn addition, if sex is for procreation, then\n\n1)\tWhy did God make it pleasurable, so that people would want to do it,\nrather than building it in as instinct?\n2)\tWhy did God make it fallible?  Not every sexual encounter results in\npregnancy, even among Catholics.  Does this mean that they have sinned?\n \n> In any case alt.sex.stories and the Catholic teaching will\n> probably not see eye to eye on this for a long time.\n \nGranted.\n\n> \n> Motif #6 -- SEX USED AS AN INSTRUMENT VIOLENCE, POWER AND\n> HUMILIATION.  \n>                                   \n> Why pornography seems to tend in that direction, I really do not\n> know.  Probably volumes could be written on the relationships\n> between sex and power/humiliation.  But this probably gives good\n> reason why traditionally Judeo-Christianity has been so negative\n> with regard to sexuality -- it seems to tend to a great moral\n> morass. \n\nPornography would not tend in those directions if there were not a demand for\nit.  Many people have violent fantasies that they would never act out in real\nlife, but will think about and read about and mull over.\n\nLater,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tJeff                                   \n\n-- \nJeffJ@yang.earlham.edu - Official generic .sig.  Under 4 lines, under 80\ncolumns, no Amiga checks, no witty quotes, no maps of Australia, no asterisks,\nno ASCII art, no disclaimers or anti-flame requests, and one spelling errer. \n',
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 12\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective\n>moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions\n>that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole\n>thing falls apart.\n\nIt only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn\'t mean that\nan objective system can\'t exist.  It just means that one cannot be\nimplemented.\n\nkeith\n',
'From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)\nSubject: Re: Jews can\'t hide from keith@cco.\nOriginator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com\nOrganization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division\nLines: 50\n\n\nIn article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n> In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:\n> |> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n> |> >\n> |> Deletions...\n> |> Er, Jon, what Ken said was:\n> |> \n> |>   There have previously been people like you in your country.  Unfortunately,\n> |>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n> |>   most Jews did not survive.\n> |> \n> |> That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi.\n> \n> Hitler and the Nazis didn\'t spring fully formed from the forehead\n> of Athena.   They didn\'t invent anti-semitism.   They built on a \n> foundation of anti-semitism that was already present in Germany.   \n> This foundation of anti-semitism was laid down, not by the Nazis, \n> but by the people I listed, and also by hundreds of years of unthinking, \n> knee-jerk bigotry, on the part of perfectly ordinary people, and, of\n> course, their pastors and priests.\n> \n> What we have to worry about today is not whether some Hollywood\n> Hitler in a black uniform is going to come striding onto the German\n> stage in one unprepared step, but whether those same bedrock foundations\n> of anti-semitism are being laid down, little by little, in Germany,\n> as we speak.\n> \n> And if so, they will be laid down, not by Hitlers and Himmlers, who\n> will come later, but by "people like" the poster in question.   The\n> people who think that casual anti-semitism is acceptable, or even fun.\n>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n> \nDeletions...\n> I did.     Now may I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, that\n> you go read some history?\n> \n> jon.\n\nSo, you consider the german poster\'s remark anti-semitic?  Perhaps you\nimply that anyone in Germany who doesn\'t agree with israely policy in a\nnazi?  Pray tell, how does it even qualify as "casual anti-semitism"? \nIf the term doesn\'t apply, why then bring it up?\n\nYour own bigotry is shining through.  \n-- \n\n         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine\n            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.\n       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com\n',
'From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)\nSubject: Re: Who\'s next?  Mormons and Jews?\nOrganization: Hand Held Products, Inc.\nLines: 78\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com\n\nIn article <1qvh8n$gf4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah \nFriedenberg) writes:\n> In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  \n(John W. Redelfs) writes:\n> |> \n> |> Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is\n> |> next?  The Mormons or Jews?\n> \n> Give me a break.  If the Mormons fortified Utah and armed it to the teeth,\n> and were involved in illegal activity, then they deserve whatever they get.\n> \n\nWhere were you brought up?  In the former USSR?  Is Innocent until proven  \nguilty by a jury of your peers, NOT Dan Rather, dead in this country?  Seems  \nso.  Is tax evasion, the only charge brought against the BDs, punishable by  \ndeath in this country, now?\n\n\n> You are making a ludicrous suggestion.\n> \nNot really.  You are a blind idiot.\n\n> |> We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of\n> |> their rights to worship and bear arms.  Now we don\'t.\n> \n> Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing\n> ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but \n> Koresh\'s folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket\n> launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under \n> "right to bear arms."\n\n"Not sure", yet you condem them to death for it?  If the BATF had stayed home,  \nall would be alive, now.  So who murdered who?\n>  \n> |> Of course, to Jews and Mormons this is just a broken record.  It has\n> |> happened before.\n> \n> Please explain.  I do not remember Jews or Mormons (as a group) overtly \n> breaking a judicious (a.k.a. non-Nazi) law and being punished for it.\n>  \nYou have a short memory.\n\n> |> I\'ll bet all you cult haters are happy now, right?  Just hope you\'re not  \nnext.\n> \n> Followups to /dev/null  \n> \n> Alternative followups set to talk.religion.misc\n> \n\nSleep well, tonite, heartless idiot.  Sleep the sleep of the simple-minded.\n\nI shall weep for my country, myself.\n\n>  \n> |> ------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------\n> |> --------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------\n>  \n> Gedaliah Friedenberg\n> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering\n> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science\n> -=-Michigan State University\n> \n> \n>                    \n\nI\'m short of patience tonite, but rabid dogs deserve and get better treatment  \nthan the BDs got.\n\nJim\n--\njmd@handheld.com\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"I\'m always rethinking that.  There\'s never been a day when I haven\'t rethought  \nthat.  But I can\'t do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93\n"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  \nin my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"\nWILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777\n',
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)\nLines: 35\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1qnpa6INN8av@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very \n>>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.\n>\n>Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.\n\n\tI think this is a misnomer.\n\n>\n>>Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those \n>>days ], etc. \n>>All would be considered cruel under your definition.\n>>All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.\n>\n>And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too.  And, if these\n>things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution\n>(painless) would not be, either.\n\n\tBut, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered \n"cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the \nconstitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical \npain.\n\tRather, it must be a different meaning.\n\n---  \n\n  " I\'d Cheat on Hillary Too."\n\n   John Laws\n   Local GOP Reprehensitive\n   Extolling "Traditional Family Values."\n\n\n\n\n',
"From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nSubject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.\nLines: 15\n\nIn article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>\n>What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.\n\n  Do I smell .sig material here?\n\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n",
'From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)\nSubject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"\nArticle-I.D.: dsi.1pq6skINNhi4\nDistribution: usa\nOrganization: Decision Support Inc.\nLines: 28\nNNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com\n\nIn article <1993Apr3.221101.25314@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:\n>In article <1pi0dhINN8ub@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:\n>>Bigots never concede that their bigotry is irrational; it\n>>is other people who determine that by examining their arguments.\n>[...]\n>No!  I  expected it! You\'ve set yourself up a wonderful little\n>world where a bigot is whomever you say it is.  This is very \n>comfortable for you--imagine, never having to entertain an\n>argument against your belief system.  Simply accuse the person\n>making of being a bigot.  \n\nWell, this particular thread of vituperation slopped its venom over\ninto alt.atheism, where we spend most of our time entertaining\narguments against our belief system, without resorting to accusing\nothers of bigotry.  It\'s somewhat ironic that our exposure to bigotry\nhappens in this instance to have originated in rec.scouting, since I\nalways understood scouting to teach tolerance and diversity.  I\nunderstand bigotry to be irrational prejudice against other people who\nhappen to be of a different race, religion, ethnic background, sex, or\nother inconsequential characteristics.  All the evidence I\'ve seen\nindicates that sexual orientation and lack of belief in gods are\nexactly such inconsequential characteristics.  Thus, pending further\nevidence, I conclude that those who show prejudice against such people\nare bigots, and organizations that exclude such people are\ndiscriminatory.\n-- \nJim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC\nThese are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.\n',
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 26\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\ncmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:\n\n>I somewhat agree with u.  However, what it comes to (theist) religion, \n>it\'s a different matter.  That\'s because religion is like a drug, once u\n>use it, it\'s very difficult to get out of it.  That\'s because in\n>order to experience a religion, u necessarily have to have blind faith,\n>and once u have the blind faith, it\'s very diffcult for you to reason\n>yourself back to atheism again.\n>Therefore, it\'s unreasonable to ask people to try religion in order to\n>judge it.  It\'s like asking people to "try dying to find out what\n>death is like".\n\nWell now, we can\'t judge death until we are dead right?  So, why should\nwe judge religion without having experienced it?  People have said that\nreligion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc.,\nbut I don\'t totally agree with this.  Of course, we cannot really say\nhow the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion,\nbut some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.\n\nSo basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for\na given individual, or even for a general population.  We can say that\nit is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use\nreligion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state\nabove).\n\nkeith\n',
'Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Athei\nFrom: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)\nOrganization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson\nLines: 29\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.151120.14068@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:\n>In <930419.125145.9O3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes:\n>> I wonder if Noam Chomsky is reading this?\n>\n>      I could be wrong, but is he actually talking about outright\n>_government_ control of the media, aka censorship?\n>\n>      If he doesn\'t, any quick one-stop-shopping reference to his works\n>that\'ll tell me, in short, what he _does_ argue for?\n\n"Manufacturing Consent," a film about the media. You alternative movie source\nmay have this; or to book it in your local alternative theatre, contact:\n\nFILMS TRANSIT * INTERNATIONAL SALES\nJan Rofekamp\n402 Notre Dame E.\nMontreal, Quebec\nCanada H2Y 1C8\nTel (514) 844-3358 * Fax (514) 844-7298\nTelex 5560074 Filmtransmtl\n\n(US readers: call Zeitgeist Films at 212 274 1989.)\n\n-s\n--\n  Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu\n  "Take this cross and garlic; here\'s a Mezuzah if he\'s Jewish; a page of the\n    Koran if he\'s a Muslim; and if he\'s a Zen Buddhist, you\'re on your own."\n   Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to lpf@uunet.uu.net\n',
'From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)\nSubject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism\nReply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)\nOrganization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.\nLines: 79\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:\n\n>    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot\n>    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from\n>    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth\n>    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.\n>    It is truly a wonder observing God\'s creation.  Macroevolution is\n>    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed\n>    within three percent error :) ]\n\nLet us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by\nsentence.\n\n\n1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.\n\nOrigins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human\nspecies, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?\n\n2) Science cannot explain origins.\n\nThis is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends\non what origins we are talking about.\n\n3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins\nis to say that there is no higher truth than science.\n\nAgain, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher\ntruth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways\nto ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even\nbelieve that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many\nbelieve that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language\nof science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or \n"lower"; they are simply true.\n\nMore to the point, restricting one\'s discussion of origins to science\ndoes not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the\nscope of discussion.\n\n4) This is a false premise.\n\nIf this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false\nthen (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another\nfalse [or at least theologically unsound] statement.\n\n5) By the way, I enjoy science.\n\nOn the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science\nto enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say\nthat one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.\nHowever one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,\nperhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.\n\n6) It is truly a wonder observing God\'s creation.\n\nLet us not quibble; count this one as true.\n\n7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent\nreligion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]\n\nStill another false statement.  However one can make it come out true\nwith the following contextual modification:\n\n"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent\nof what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of\nwhat Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."\n\n-----\n\nIt is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch\non truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do\nhim the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his\npersonal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that\nhe has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.\n-- \nRichard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 \nUS Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272\nIn the fields of Hell where the grass grows high\nAre the graves of dreams allowed to die.\n',
'From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)\nSubject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics\nLines: 76\n\n\nChris Faehl writes:\n\n> >Many atheists do not mock the concept of a god, they are shocked that\n> >so many theists have fallen to such a low level that they actually\n> >believe in a god.  You accuse all atheists of being part of a conspiracy,\n> >again without evidence.\n>\n>> Rule *2:  Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will >not\n>> win many people to your faith anytime soon.  It only ruins your credibility.\n\n>Fallacy #1: Atheism is a faith. Lo! I hear the FAQ beckoning once again...\n>[wonderful Rule #3 deleted - you\'re correct, you didn\'t say anything >about\n>a conspiracy]\n\nCorrection: _hard_ atheism is a faith.\n\n>> Rule #4:  Don\'t mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the\n>> extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people\n>> unsympathetic to his cause. That was atrocious. But Stalin killed millions of\n>> his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can\n>> anyone be worse than that?\n\n>I will not explain this to you again: Stalin did nothing in the name of\n>atheism. Whethe he was or was not an atheist is irrelevant.\n\nGet a grip, man.  The Stalin example was brought up not as an\nindictment of atheism, but merely as another example of how people will\nkill others under any name that\'s fit for the occasion.\n\n>> Rule #6:  If you rely on evidence, state it.  We\'re waiting.\n\n>As opposed to relying on a bunch of black ink on some crumbling old paper...\n>Atheism has to prove nothing to you or anyone else. It is the burden of\n>dogmatic religious bullshit to provide their \'evidence\'. Which \'we\'\n>might you be referring to, and how long are you going to wait?\n\nSo hard atheism has nothing to prove?  Then how does it justify that\nGod does not exist?  I know, there\'s the FAQ, etc.  But guess what -- if\nthose justifications were so compelling why aren\'t people flocking to\n_hard_ atheism?  They\'re not, and they won\'t.  I for one will discourage\npeople from hard atheism by pointing out those very sources as reliable\nstatements on hard atheism.\n\nSecond, what makes you think I\'m defending any given religion?  I\'m merely\nrecognizing hard atheism for what it is, a faith.\n\nAnd yes, by "we" I am referring to every reader of the post.  Where is the\nevidence that the poster stated that he relied upon?\n>\n>> Oh yes, though I\'m not a theist, I can say safely that *by definition* many\n>> theists are not arrogant, since they boast about something _outside_\n>> themselves, namely, a god or gods.  So in principle it\'s hard to see how\n>> theists are necessarily arrogant.\n\n>Because they say, "Such-and-such is absolutely unalterably True, because\n         ^^^^\n>my dogma says it is True." I am not prepared to issue blanket statements\n>indicting all theists of arrogance as you are wont to do with atheists.\n\nBzzt!  By virtue of your innocent little pronoun, "they", you\'ve just issued\na blanket statement.  At least I will apologize by qualifying my original\nstatement with "hard atheist" in place of atheist.  Would you call John the\nBaptist arrogant, who boasted of one greater than he?  That\'s what many\nChristians do today.  How is that _in itself_ arrogant?\n>\n>> I\'m not worthy!\n>Only seriously misinformed.\nWith your sophisticated put-down of "they", the theists, _your_ serious\nmisinformation shines through.\n\n--\nBake Timmons, III\n\n-- "...there\'s nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life\nthan some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)\n',
'From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: Nicknames\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 21\n\nIn article <1993Apr18.231914.143616@zeus.calpoly.edu>,\njmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:\n> >Mathew "FAQ" can\'t remember his last name\n> >Keith "Lie Tally .sig" Ryan\n> >Kent "Finn-tastic" Sandvick\n> >Cindy "Popsicle Toes" Kandolf\n> >Jim "Face .sig" Tims\n> >Simon "Clip-that-theist" Clippendale\n> >Umar "Reasonable" Khan\n> >Rob "Argue with G-d" Strom\n> >Dave "Buckminster" Fuller\n> >Maddi "Never a useful post" Hausmann\n> \n> Hey, what about an affectionate nickname for me?\n\nYou could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).\n\nCheers,\nKent Sandvik\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n',
"From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)\nSubject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics\nOrganization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada\nLines: 11\n\ntimmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:\n\n>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the\n>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people\n>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed millions of\n>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can\n>anyone be worse than that?\n\nYou're right.  And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.\n\n\n",
'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\n\t<1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com>\nLines: 41\n\nIn article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com> \nxzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes:\n>|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> \n>|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:\n>|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the\n>|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please\n>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n>I don\'t believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law.  However,\n>we are not saved by adherence to the Law.  The Law exists to tell us what\n>is sinful.  We all sin.\n\nHence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to\nChristians.\n\n>Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with\n>blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.\n\nWhen was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?\n\n>Christians \n>believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.\n\nThe blood sacrifice of an innocent man?\n\n>This does not make the Law \'irrelevant\'.\n\nThen why don\'t Christians follow it, why don\'t they even follow their\nown Ten Commandments?\n\n>Breaking the Law *is* sinful,\n>and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize\n>salvation.\n\nSo, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?\n\n>Note that I\'m not a theologian.  But this is the gist of several\n>sermons I\'ve heard lately and some Bible studies I\'ve been through.  \n\nDid you ever wonder if someone, perhaps a great deceiver, was pulling\nyour leg?\n',
'From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)\nSubject: Re: An invisible God!\nOrganization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as \'guest\'.\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <1993Apr17.152833.7811@maths.tcd.ie> \npmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:\n>jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) writes:\n>> God CAN be seen:\n>>        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."\n>Wot? God\'s a mooner? \n\nSuch lunacy!\n\n>(Gee, maybe there\'s something in this Christianity thing after all -\n>maybe God is John Belushi from "Animal House")\n\nThe SuperNatural One wants to have a personal relationship with you.\nJHVH-1, come quick!\n',
"From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nSubject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)\nLines: 21\nReply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu\n\n\nIn a previous article, alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid y!)) says:\n\n>\n>Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that\n>AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? \n\nAbsolutely. Lewis didn't care for the 1921 O.T.O. charter from Reuss. He had\nin mind something completely diferent. Crowley and Lewis were very\ndifferent persons, as you probably know.\n\n>.. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin\n>off of AMORC??\n\nNo. My overstatement, sorry :-)\n\n>>Study Harder,\n>Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)\n>\nI ALWAYS DO.\n\n",
'From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 13\n\nfrank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n> In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats\n> Andtbacka) writes:\n> |      "And these objective values are ... ?"\n> |Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate.\n> \n> I\'ll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.\n\nYes, but whose freedom?  The world in general doesn\'t seem to value the\nfreedom of Tibetans, for example.\n\n\nmathew\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: <<Pompous ass\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 20\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <1qlef4INN8dn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> [...]\n|> >>The "little\' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People\n|> >>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.\n|> >That\'s not true.  I gave you two examples.  One was the rather\n|> >pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler\n|> >arrived.  The other was the system of social ranks that were used\n|> >in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest \n|> >of the population.\n|> \n|> These don\'t seem like "little things" to me.  At least, they are orders\n|> worse than the motto.  Do you think that the motto is a "little thing"\n|> that will lead to worse things?\n\nYou don\'t think these are little things because with twenty-twenty\nhindsight, you know what they led to.\n\njon.\n',
'From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nLines: 31\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\n\nfrank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n> In article <1qg8bu$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon\n> Livesey) writes:\n> #And this "objective morality" is........?\n> \n> And here, children, we have a person playing the "objective morality doesn\'t \n> exist, show me one" game. You can play this with just about anything:\n> \n> And this "objective medicine" is.....?\n> And this "objective physics" is.....?\n> And this "objective reality" is.....?\n\nPrecisely.\n\nThere\'s no objective medicine; some people get marvellous results from\nalternative therapy, others only respond to traditional medicine.\n\nThere\'s no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.\n\nThere\'s no objective reality. LSD should be sufficient to prove that.\n\n> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term \n> "objective", if anything.\n\nI consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive\ntowards. Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn\'t\nactually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not\nbe too far wrong.\n\n\nmathew\n', 'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 30\n\nIn article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu>\nhealta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did? Seems a\n>pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..."\n>\n>I\'m gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used\n>to be a theology major.\n>First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle--\n>"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title).\n>God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making\n>decisions.\n(Deletion)\n \nAn universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less\ntyrannic to let one of one\'s own creatures do what it likes to others?\nBy your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what\nwould happen - including every choice of Satan.\n \nCan you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience?\nDidn\'t your god know everything that would happen even before it created the\nworld? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if\neverything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility\nto abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?\n \n \nBy the way, are you sure that you have read the FAQ? Especially the part\nabout preaching?\n Benedikt\n', 'From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.\nX-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01\nLines: 19\n\nkeith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:\n>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?\n> \n> Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you\n> blame the tiger?\n\nAs far as I know, tigers are not sentient. If I were pushed into a pool with\nsome dolphins and they attacked me, I might be inclined to blame the dolphins\nrather than the person doing the pushing, as (a) dolphins are not usually\naggressive and (b) they seem to have well-developed brains and a capacity for\nabstract thought.\n\nAs a matter of fact, tigers rarely attack humans unless the human provokes\nthem. Of course, if they are in a cage which is far too small, that might\ncount as provocation...\n\n\nmathew\n', 'Subject: Re: Gospel Dating\nFrom: p00261@psilink.com (Robert Knowles)\nOrganization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa\nIn-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>\nNntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1\nX-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)\nLines: 22\n\n>DATE: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 16:30:50 GMT\n>FROM: Stilgar <west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu>\n>\n>In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. \n>Ryan) writes:\n>> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu> \n>west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:\n>> \n>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*\n>> \n>> \tI dispute it.\n>> \n>> \tErgo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.\n>\n>\tI dispute your counter-example\n>\n>\tErgo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and\n>\tI am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH\n>\t\t\t8^p\n>\n\nThis looks like a serious case of temporary Islam. \n', 'From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)\nSubject: Re: Motto Mania\nLines: 33\n\nmathew writes:\n\n>I prefer Mark-Jason Dominus\'s suggestion that the motto should be changed to\n>"Mind your own fucking business".\n\nIn this era of AIDS, isn\'t someone\'s fucking *everyone\'s* interest? (semi\n:-))\n\nI propose "We have no motto."\n\nRecently in the glorious state of Maryland (the only state whose state song\nrefers to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant), people have gotten all wound up over\nthe state motto (which we inherited from the Calverts):\n\n "Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine"\n\nwhich, if you read Italian, says,\n\n "Manly deeds, womanly words"\n\nor something to that effect. In the state which not so long ago had four\nwomen out of seven representatives, this represents a problem. The official\nsolution was to change the translation, so now it means:\n\n "Strong deeds, gentle words"\n\nMy personal suggestion was changing it to "walk softly and carry a big\nstick."\n-- \nC. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,\n + but strife closed in the sod.\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:\ntove!mangoe + the marv\'lous peace of God."\n', 'From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: University of Virginia\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <visser.735284180@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:\n\n>\tPlease get an explaination of exactly what this "non-toxic" tear\n>gas was and what the delivery system was. I refuse to believe any \n>explaination provided by the FBI/ATF without lots of facts.\n>\n>\tI do not believe that there is such a thing as "non-toxic" tear\n>gas.\n>\n\nYou are correct. See today\'s (4/21) Washington Post. The gas the\nFBI used is most certainly fatal in high concentrations. Of course,\nnon-toxic tear gas is an oxymoron; the whole point of tear gas is\nthat it is toxic, and its toxic effects cause people to seek\nfresh air.\n\n--\nLegalize Freedom\n', 'From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: Stephen F. Austin State University\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:\n> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead. The FBI and\n> the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was a testimonial to their\n> stupidity and lies. \n> \n\t[...deleted...]\n\nUnfortunately, I think you\'ve got it figured pretty well. I also ask\nmyself the question "Why did they plan for so many months. Why was\nthis so important to them? What was the government really up to?\nWhy did they seal the warrant? Were they after Koresh or were they after \nthe first and second amendments, among others?\n\n> \n> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran. We gave these\n> people 51 days. \n> \n-- \n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Joe Gaut | In the super-state, it really does not\n <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> | matter at all what actually happened.\n Remember the Alamo | Truth is what the government chooses to \n Remember Waco | tell you. Justice is what it wants to happen.\n --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.\n', 'From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com\nSubject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long)\nLines: 346\n\nIn article <930420.105805.0x8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:\n>>In article <930419.115707.6f2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew\n>><mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:\n>>> Which "liberal news media" are we talking about?\n>> \n>> Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":\n>> CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. The general tone of the news during the whole\n>> war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely\n>> this cruise missile blew this building to bits".\n> \n> Most odd. Over here there was very little about the suffering of the Iraqi\n> civilians until towards the end of the war; and then it was confined to the\n> few remaining quality newspapers.\n\nTrue. At first, the news media seemed entranced by all the new gizmos\nthe military was using, not to mention the taped video transmissions from\nthe missiles as they zeroed in on their targets. But later, and especially\nafter the bunker full of civilians was hit, they changed their tone. It\nseemed to me that they didn\'t have the stomach for the reality of war,\nthat innocent people really do die and are maimed in warfare. It\'s like\nthey were only pro-Gulf-War as long as it was "nice and clean" (smart\nmissiles dropping in on military HQs), but not when pictures of dead,\ndying, and maimed civilians started cropping up. What naive hypocrites!\n\n> \n>>>> How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2?\n>>>> I don\'t hear you bemoaning them!\n\n[ discussion about blanket-bombing and A-bombs deleted.]\n>>> \n>> All things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were\n>> essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick\n ^^^^^^^^^\n>> end to avoid even greater allied losses.\n\nI should have said here "militarily justified". It seems from your\ncomments below that you understood this as meaning "morally justified".\nI apologize.\n\n> \n> What about the evidence that America knew Japan was about to surrender after\n> Hiroshima but *before* Nagasaki? Is that another lie peddled by the liberal\n> media conspiracy?\n\nI have often wondered about this. I\'ve always thought that the first bomb\nshould have been dropped on Japan\'s island fortress of Truk. A good,\ninpenatrable military target. The second bomb could\'ve been held back\nfor use on an industrial center if need be. But I digress.\n\nYes, I have heard that we found evidence (after the war, BTW) that Japan\nwas seriously considering surrender after the first bomb. Unfortunately,\nthe military junta won out over the moderates and rejected the US\'s\nulimatum. Therefore the second bomb was dropped. Most unfortunate, IMO.\n\n> \n>> I, for one, don\'t regret it.\n> \n> Nuke a Jap for Jesus!\n> \n\nI don\'t regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made\nwhich affect the lives of innocent people. But I do regret the \ncircumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the\nsuffering caused by those decisions. \n\n[...]\n\n>>> Why all the fuss about Kuwait and not East Timor, Bosnia, or even Tibet?\n>>> If Iraq is so bad, why were we still selling them stuff a couple of weeks\n>>> before we started bombing?\n>> \n>> I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the\n>> West before the war. It is evident that the West, especially America,\n>> misjudged Hussein drastically. But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and \n>> threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world\'s\n>> oil supply, he had to be stopped.\n> \n> Oh, I see. So we can overlook his using chemical weapons on thousands of\n> people, but if he threatens your right to drive a huge gas-guzzling car,\n> well, the man\'s gotta go.\n\nActually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US\nand allied action. If some back-water country took over some other\nback-water country, we probably wouldn\'t intervene. Not that we don\'t\ncare, but we can\'t be the world\'s policman. Or if a coup had occured\nin Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn\'t have acted\nbecause there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to\nSaudi Arabia. But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion\nby a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West\'s oil \ninterests, caused us to take action.\n\n> \n> [ I\'ve moved a paragraph from here to later on ]\n> \n\n[...]\n>> \n>> If we hadn\'t intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would\n>> have been appeasement.\n> \n> Right. But did you ever hear anyone advocate such a course of action? Or\n> are you just setting up a strawman?\n> \n\nI\'m not setting up a strawman at all. If you want to argue against the\nwar, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep\nKuwait. Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.\n\n>>>> I guess we\n>>>> shouldn\'t have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent\n>>>> German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg.\n>>> \n>>> Yes, do. Germans are human too, you know.\n>> \n>> Sure. What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in\n>> his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich". The consequences\n>> stemmed from that.\n> \n> Translation: "They were asking for it".\n> \nWell, in a sense, yes. They probably had no idea of what end Hitler\nwould lead their nation to.\n\n> But what about those who didn\'t support Hitler\'s dreams of conquest? It\'s\n> not as if they democratically voted for all his policies. The NSDAP got 43%\n> in the elections of 1933, and that was the last chance the German people got\n> to vote on the matter.\n\nThey suffered along with the rest. Why does this bother you so much?\nThe world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect. Many\ninnocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others. It it regretable,\nbut that\'s The-Way-It-Is. There are no perfect solutions.\n\n[...]\n>>> \n>>> I look forward to hearing your incisive comments about East Timor and\n>>> Tibet.\n>>\n>> What should I say about them? Anything in particular?\n> \n> The people of East Timor are still being killed by a dictatorship that\n> invaded their country. Hell, even Western journalists have been killed. All\n> this was happening before the Gulf War. Why didn\'t we send in the bombers to\n> East Timor? Why aren\'t we sending in the bombers NOW?\n\nProbably because we\'re not the saviors of the world. We can\'t police each\nand every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another. Nor\nare we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or\nsome other places.\n> \n> [ Here\'s that paragraph I moved ]\n> \n>>> What\'s your intent? To sound like a Loving Christian? Well, you aren\'t\n>>> doing a very good job of it.\n>> \n>> Well, it\'s not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up\n>> nearby countries and keep them. Or to allow them to continue with mass\n>> slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion. So, I\'d have to\n>> say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the\n>> most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.\n> \n> The Chinese government has a policy of mandatory abortion and sterilization\n> of Tibetans. Tibetan people are rounded up, tortured, and executed. Amnesty\n> International recently reported that torture is still widespread in China.\n> \n> Why aren\'t we stopping them? In fact, why are we actively sucking up to them\n> by trading freely with them?\n\nTell me how we could stop them and I\'ll support it. I, for one, do not\nagree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.\nI agree that it is deplorable.\n\n> \n>>>> And as for poor, poor Rodney King! Did you ever stop and think *why*\n>>>> the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of "not guilty"?\n>>> \n>>> Yes. Amongst the things I thought were "Hmm, there\'s an awful lot of white\n>>> people in that jury."\n>> \n>> So? It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!!\n> \n> Erm, surely it\'s irrelevant who\'s on trial? Juries are supposed to represent\n> a cross-section of the population.\n\nAre they? Or are they supposed to reflect the population of the locale\nwhere the trial is held? (Normally this is where the crime is committed\nunless one party or the other can convince the judge a change of venue\nis in order.) I\'m not an expert on California law, or even US law, but\nit seems that this is the way the system is set up. You can criticize\nthe system, but let\'s not have unfounded allegations of racial \nprejudice thrown around.\n\n> \n>> And under American law they deserved a jury of *their* peers!\n> \n> You are saying that black people are not the peers of white people?\n\nNo, not at all. The point is that the fact that there were no blacks\non the first jury and that Rodney King is black is totally irrelevant.\n\n> \n>> This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.\n> \n> This idea of people only being tried before a jury of people just like them\n> is really stupid. Should the Nuremburg trials have had a jury entirely made\n> up of Nazis?\n\nGermans, perhaps. "Peers" doesn\'t mean "those who do the same thing",\nlike having murderers judge murderers. It means "having people from\nthe same station in life", presumably because they are in a better\nposition to understand the defendent\'s motivation(s).\n\n> \n>>>> Those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those\n>>>> policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape.\n>>>> But the jury looked at *all* the evidence, evidence which you and I\n>>>> have not seen.\n>>> \n>>> When I see a bunch of policemen beating someone who\'s lying defenceless on\n>>> the ground, it\'s rather hard to imagine what this other evidence might have\n>>> been.\n>> \n>> So? It\'s "hard to imagine"? So when has Argument from Incredulity\n>> gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical\n>> Argument"?\n> \n> We\'re not talking about a logical argument. We\'re talking about a court of\n> law. As the FAQ points out, some fallacious arguments are not viewed as\n> fallacies in a court of law.\n\nOK, granted. However, you are using this reasoning as part of *your*\nlogical argument in this discussion. This is not a court of law.\n\n> \n>> If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then\n>> I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.\n> \n> Were you not talking earlier about the bias of the liberal media conspiracy?\n> \nThe media is not totally monolithic. Even though there is a prevailing\nliberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give\na balanced and fair reporting of the news. There are even conservative\nsources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!)\n\nBTW, I never used the word "conspiracy". I don\'t accept (without *far*\nmore evidence) theories that there is some all-pervading liberal\nconspiracy attempting to take over all news sources.\n\n>>> "Thou shalt not kill... unless thou hast a pretty good reason for killing,\n>>> in which case thou shalt kill, and also kill anyone who gets in the way,\n>>> as unfortunately it cannot be helped."\n>>> -- Jim Brown Bible for Loving Christians\n>> \n>> Thanks mathew, I like the quote. Pretty funny actually. (I\'m a \n>> Monty Python fan, you know. Kind of seems in that vein.)\n>> \n>> Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem\n>> contradictory. But then, you know that already.\n> \n> Ha ha, only serious.\n> \n> I, an atheist, am arguing against killing innocent people.\n> \n> You, a supposed Christian, are arguing that it\'s OK to kill innocent people\n> so long as you get some guilty ones as well.\n\nHardly. I didn\'t say that it\'s a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people\nif the end is just. Unfortunately, we don\'t live in a perfect world and\nthere are no perfect solutions. If one is going to resist tyranny, then\ninnocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die. I didn\'t say\nit is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.\n\n> \n> I, a moral relativist, am arguing that saturation bombing of German cities at\n> the end of World War II was (as far as I can see) an evil and unnecessary act.\n\nI would agree that it was evil in the sense that it caused much pain\nand suffering. I\'m not so sure that it was unnecessary as you say. That\nconclusion can only be arrived at by evaluating all the factors involved.\nAnd perhaps it *was* unnecessary as (let\'s say) we now know. That doesn\'t\nmean that those who had to make the decision to bomb didn\'t see it as\nbeing necessary. Rarely can one have full known of the consequences of\nan action before making a decision. At the time it may have seemed\nnecessary enough to go ahead with it.\n\nBut don\'t assume that I feel the bombing was *morally* justified -- I\ndon\'t! I just don\'t condemn those who had to make a difficult\ndecision under difficult circumstances.\n\n> \n> You, having criticised moral relativism in the past, are now arguing that I am\n> in no position to judge the morality of allied actions at the end of the\n> War. \n\nYou certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.\nI, as an absolutist, am in a position to judge, but I defer judgment.\n\n> You are arguing that the actions need to be assessed in the particular\n> context of the time, and that they might have been moral then but not moral\n> now.\n\nWrong. They were neither moral then nor now. They seemed necessary to\nthose making the decisions to bring a quick end to the war. I simply\nrefuse to condemn them for their decision.\n> \n> Where\'s your Christian love? Where\'s your absolute morality? Oh, how quick\n> you are to discard them when it suits you. As Ivan Stang would say, "Jesus\n> would puke!"\n\nOne day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;\neven this discourse in this forum. I understand the full ramifications of\nthat, and I am prepared to do so. I don\'t believe that you can make the\nsame claim.\n\n> \n> mathew\n\nAnd BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was\nbecause you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being \n"so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing\nwasn\'t accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a\ndecisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,\nprecision bombing was the norm. So the point was, why make a big\nstink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted\n*in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians\n(proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing\nin WW2? Even with precision bombing, mistakes happen and some\ncivilians suffer. But less civilians suffered in this war than\nany other iany other in history! Many Iraqi civilians went about their lives\nwith minimal interference from the allied air raids. The stories\nof "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.\nYes, bunk. The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years\nand the majority of them were directly involved in fighting! But \nwe are expected to swallow that "hundreds of thousands" of \n*civilian* Iraqis died in a war lasting about 2 months! And with \nthe Allies using the most precise bombs ever created at that! \nWhat hogwash. If "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians died, \nit was due to actions Hussein took on his own people, not due to \nthe Allied bombing.\n\nRegards,\n\nJim B.\n\n\n', 'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: Wholly Babble (Was Re: free moral agency)\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 10\n\nIn article <2944159064.5.p00261@psilink.com>\n"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>Of course, there is also the\n>Book of the SubGenius and that whole collection of writings as well.\n \n \nDoes someone know a FTP site with it?\n Benedikt\n', "From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 12\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nsandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:\n\n>>To borrow from philosophy, you don't truly understand the color red\n>>until you have seen it.\n>Not true, even if you have experienced the color red you still might\n>have a different interpretation of it.\n\nBut, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge\nit subjectively. And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting\nto discuss the merits of red.\n\nkeith\n", 'From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOriginator: news@nimaster\nNntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu\nOrganization: Princeton University\nLines: 28\n\nIn article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:\n>In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n>>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.\n>>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them\n>>from subjective values, before we go any further.\n>\n>Atoms are not objective.  They aren\'t even real.  What scientists call\n>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes \n>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All\n>of which is subjective.  \n\n[rest deleted...]\n\nYou were a liberal arts major, weren\'tcha?\n\nGuess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--\n"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the\nspecifics).\n\nAtoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and\nverifiable. Morals aren\'t. See the difference?\n\nTep\n-- \nMen who love brown tend to be warm and deep, sensitive to the needs and\ndesires of their partners. Sex is a 24 hour a day thing. Snuggling by\nthe fire, walking in the rain or catching snowflakes on their tongue is\na real turn-on to a lover of brown. (thanx becka!)\n',
'From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: Red Barn Data Center\nLines: 49\n\nIn article <C5tByD.6zD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:\n...\n>Hang on you missed the point entirely, they are protesting the lack of\n>water because it DEPRIVED Koresh of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to prove\n>his DIVINITY by WALKING on it.\n\n\tYou can tell, folks, when the man has run out of reason:\n\tattack the man\'s beliefs (in legal terminology, argument\n\tad hominem:  attack the man, not what he did that has yet to\n\tbe proven illegal)>\n\n>\n>\n>|>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.\n>|>\n>|>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released\n>|>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.\n>\n>You can tell that the gas did not burn because dispite the fact that\n\n\n\tWRONGo.  Remember the fire movie a couple of years ago?\n\t"Backdraft"?  The scene in the factory with propane gas\n\tcoming out of pipes and gasoline all over the floor,\n\twith a 750 degree flame front overhead?\n\n\t\tNote that it did not flash all at once?\n\n\tFires ignite and burn unpredictably.\n\tGases (like tear gas) mix and distribute unevenly.\n\t\tAnd flash unevenly.\n\n\tYou are not a fire analyst.  You cannnot tell.\n\t\t(NB:  Neither am I.  And I cannot tell\n\t\tNor is the FBI spokesman\n\t\tNor is Reno\n\t\tMaybe we all should shut up and get a\n\t\t\tforensics analysis first.\n\n>the building was full of it there was no flash of gas flame.\n\n\tYes,. there was a flash:  in one room, just pumped full of it.,\n\n>\n>\n>\n>Phill Hallam-Baker\n\nroyc\n',
"From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 19\n\nIn article <115846@bu.edu>\njaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n \n(Deletion)\n>Certainly. It is a central aspect of Islam to show mercy and to give\n>those who've done wrong (even presuming Rushdie _did_ violate Islamic\n>Law) and committed crimes. This was the basis for my posts regarding\n>leniency which seemed not to have penetrated Benedikt's skull.\n \nYou have demanded harsh punishments of several crimes. Repeating\noffenders have slipped in only as justification of harsh punishment at\nall. Typically religious doublespeak. Whenever you have contradictory\nstatements you choose the possibility that suits your current argument.\n \nIt is disgusting that someone with ideas that would make Theodore KKKaldis\nfeel cozy can go along under the protection of religion.\n \nGregg, tell us, would you kill idolaters?\n   Benedikt\n",
"From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)\nSubject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention\nNntp-Posting-Host: zippy.radian.com\nOrganization: n.o.y.b\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:\n> With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider\n>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought\n>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,\n>would amuse you all...\n<MUNCH!>\n> I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,\n\nIt would be funny if it wasn't so damn *NASTY*; and as non-xian as I am, \nit's hard to believe that someone is pushing black is white and freedom\nis slavery so blatantly.\n\n\tmark\n\n", 'From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>\nSubject: Re: New Member\nOrganization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA\nLines: 16\n\t<1993Apr16.015931.12153@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>\nNNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu\nIn-Reply-To: <1993Apr16.015931.12153@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>\n\njcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes:\n> Welcome. I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people\n> are known by on alt.atheism (didn\'t know we had such a list, did you).\n> Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster." So the next time\n> you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:\n> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller. Thanks again.\n> \n> Jim "Humor means never having to say you\'re sorry" Copeland\n\nOf course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the\nGIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on\nthe iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?). Since I am\na prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of\nnicknames for the frequent posters here!\n\nNanci\n', 'From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu\nSubject: Re: Where are they now?\nOrganization: Macalester College\nLines: 38\n\nIn article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:\n> \n> Wow. Leave your terminal for a few months and everyone you remember goes\n> away-- how depressing. Actually, there are a few familiar faces out there,\n> counting Bob and Kent, but I don\'t seem to recognize anyone else. Has anyone\n> heard from Graham Matthews recently, or has he gotten his degree and sailed\n> for Greener Pastures (tm)? \n> \n> Which brings me to the point of my posting. How many people out there have \n> been around alt.atheism since 1990? I\'ve done my damnedest to stay on top of\n> the newsgroup, but when you fall behind, you REALLY fall behind (it\'s still not\n> as bad as rec.arts.startrek used to be, but I digress). Has anyone tried to\n> keep up with the deluge? Inquiring minds want to know! Also-- does anyone\n> keep track of where the more infamous posters to alt.atheism end up, once they\n> leave the newsgroup? Just curious, I guess.\n> \n> cheers,\n> tom bruno\n\n\nI am one of those people who always willl have unlimited stores of unfounded\nrespect for people who have been on newsgroups/mailing lists longer than I\nhave, so you certainly have my sympathy Tom. I have only been semi-regularly\nposting (it is TOUGHto keep up) since this February, but I have been reading\nand following the threads since last August: my school\'s newsreader was down\nfor months and our incompetent computing services never bothered to find a new\nfeed site, so it wasn\'t accepting outgoing postings. I don\'t think anyone\nkeeps track of where other posters go: it\'s that old love \'em and leave \'em\nInternet for you again...\n\n\nbest regards,\n\n********************************************************************************\n* Adam John Cooper\t\t"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *\n*\t\t\t\t who thought themselves good simply because *\n* acooper@macalstr.edu\t\t\t\tthey had no claws."\t *\n********************************************************************************\n', 'From: chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL)\nSubject: Re: Don\'t more innocents die without the death penalty?\nOrganization: South Australian Regional Academic and Research Network\nLines: 19\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: baarnie.tafe.sa.edu.au\n\n"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:\n\n>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we \n>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than \n>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.\n\nI would rather be at a higher risk of being killed than actually killed by\n ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^\nmistake. Though I do agree with the concept that the type D and E murderers\nare a massive waste of space and resources I don\'t agree with the concept:\n\n\tkilling is wrong\n\tif you kill we will punish you\n\tour punishment will be to kill you.\n\nSeems to be lacking in consistency.\n\n--\n"I know" is nothing more than "I believe" with pretentions.\n', 'From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Decision Support Inc.\nLines: 80\nNNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com\n\n(References: deleted to move this to a new thread)\n\nIn article <114133@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n>In article <1phkf7INN86p@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:\n\n>>}Rushdie is, however, as I understand, a muslim.\n>>}The fact that he\'s a British citizen does not preclude his being muslim.\n>\n>>Rushdie was an atheist (to use local terminology, not to put words in\n>>his mouth) at the time of writing TSV and at the time of the fatwa in\n>>February 1989.[...]\n>\n>Well, if he was born muslim (I am fairly certain he was) then he _is_ \n>muslim until he explicitly renounces Islam. So far as I know he has never\n>explicitly renounced Islam, though he may have been in extreme doubt\n>about the existence of God. Being muslim is a legal as well as\n>intellectual issue, according to Islam.\n\n"To put it as simply as possible: *I am not a Muslim*.[...] I do not\n accept the charge of apostacy, because I have never in my adult life\n affirmed any belief, and what one has not affirmed one can not be\n said to have apostasized from. The Islam I know states clearly that\n \'there can be no coercion in matters of religion\'. The many Muslims\n I respect would be horrified by the idea that they belong to their\n faith *purely by virtue of birth*, and that a person who freely chose\n not to be a Muslim could therefore be put to death."\n \t \t \t \tSalman Rushdie, "In Good Faith", 1990\n\n"God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth\n year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith. [...]and afterwards, to\n prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham\n sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of\n the swine. No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that\n day to this I have thought of myself as a wholly seculat person."\n \t \t \t \tSalman Rushdie, "In God We Trust", 1985\n \n>>[I] think the Rushdie affair has discredited Islam more in my eyes than\n>>Khomeini -- I know there are fanatics and fringe elements in all\n>>religions, but even apparently "moderate" Muslims have participated or\n>>refused to distance themselves from the witch-hunt against Rushdie.\n>\n>Yes, I think this is true, but there Khomenei\'s motivations are quite\n>irrelevant to the issue. The fact of the matter is that Rushdie made\n>false statements (fiction, I know, but where is the line between fact\n>and fiction?) about the life of Mohammad. \n\nOnly a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the\nnature of the novel could think such a thing. I\'ll accept it\n(reluctantly) from mobs in Pakistan, but not from you. What is\npresented in the fictional dream of a demented character cannot by the\nwildest stretch of the imagination be considered a reflection on the\nactual Mohammad. What\'s worse, the novel doesn\'t present the\nMahound/Mohammed character in any worse light than secular histories\nof Islam; in particular, there is no "lewd" misrepresentation of his\nlife or that of his wives.\n\n>That is why\n>few people rush to his defense -- he\'s considered an absolute fool for \n>his writings in _The Satanic Verses_. \n\nDon\'t hold back; he\'s considered an apostate and a blasphemer.\nHowever, it\'s not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for\nwhat people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is\ncontained in that book. I have yet to find *one single muslim* who\nhas convinced me that they have read the book. Some have initially\nclaimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book\nthan a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made\nfactual misstatements about events in the book.\n\n>If you wish to understand the\n>reasons behind this as well has the origin of the concept of "the\n>satanic verses" [...] see the\n>Penguin paperback by Rafiq Zakariyah called _Mohammad and the Quran_.\n\nI\'ll keep an eye out for it. I have a counter-proposal: I suggest\nthat you see the Viking hardcover by Salman Rushdie called _The\nSatanic Verses_. Perhaps then you\'ll understand.\n-- \nJim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC\nThese are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.\n', "From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)\nSubject: Re: scientology???\nOrganization: The Portal System (TM)\nLines: 8\n\n> i need some brief information on scientology (or applientology as frank zappa\n> would call it) anyone have the time to send me some info on ol' l.ron and the b\n> asics of what scientology is all about would be appreciated---p.s.i am not inte\n> rested in any propaganda\n\nI've taken the liberty of passing your name and address to your local org\n(Scientology office). They'll be contacting you in a few days. I also\nthrew in a small contribution, so they'd know you're serious. :-)\n", "From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 16\n\nIn article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis\nKriz) wrote:\n> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would\n> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of\n> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on\n> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present\n> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of\n> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  \n\nDennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even\nstudy such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...\n\nCheers,\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
"From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)\nSubject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions\nOrganization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA\nLines: 26\n\njoslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n\n>Someone writes:\n>>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit,\n>>but now I'd like some help with it.\n\n>I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.\n\nIt's about time.  Why do atheists spend so much time paying attention\nto the bible, anyway?\n\nFace it, there are better things to do with your life!  I used to\nchuckle and snort over the silliness in that book and the absurdity\nof people believing in it as truth, etc.  Why do we spend so little\ntime on the Mayan religion, or the Native Americans?  Heck, the Native\nAmericans have signifigantly more interesting myths.  Also, what\nabout the Egyptians.\n\nI think we pay so much attention to Christianity because we accept\nit as a _religion_ and not a mythology, which I find more accurate.\n\n\nI try to be tolerant.  It gets very hard when someone places a book\nunder my nose and tells me it's special.  It's not.\n\nCarolyn\n",
'From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)\nSubject: Re: islamic genocide\nOrganization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.\nLines: 49\n\nIn <2943927496.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:\n\n>>DATE:   14 Apr 1993 23:52:11 GMT\n>>FROM:   Frank O\'Dwyer <frank@D012S658.uucp>\n>>\n>>In article <1993Apr14.102810.6059@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:\n>>\n>>Just borrowing your post, Mr. Rice...\n>>\n>>#In <2943656910.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:\n>>#>Are you sure that democracy is the driving force behind\n>>#>the massacres in East Timor?  It is certainly odd that so many of the worlds\n>>#>massacres occur along religious lines, independently of any claims to a\n>>#>democratic form of government.  Are Ireland and Northern Ireland considered\n>>#>democracies?  Would you attribute their problems to democracy even though\n>>#>they are democracies?  Which motivates them more, religion or democracy?\n>>\n>>Mr. Rice was pointing out a fallacy in the assertion that Islam is evil\n>>because some of those who claim to follow it are evil, not asserting that \n>>democracy causes massacres, as I read it.  \n\n>That is right, he was.  And I was pointing out that his use of Indonesians\n>killing the East Timorese as a result of _democracy_ was a bit weak because\n>democracy is not much of a motivation for doing much of anything in Indonesia\n>from what I remember.  East Timor was a former Portguese territory which was\n>forcibly annexed by Indonesia.  Last I heard over 10,000 Indonesians have\n>died trying to keep East Timor a part of Indonesia.  Being a former \n>Portuguese colony, there is a strong Catholic influence in East Timor as I\n>recall.  So it seems a bit odd that yet again we have another war being\n>fought between people who just "happen" to have different religions.  Purely\n>coincidental, I guess.  But then the real motivation is to get the vote out\n>and make democracy work in Indonesia.\n\nI pointed out the secession movement in Aceh which has also been\nbrutally dealt with in the past by the Indonesian government.  The\nharshly with all secessionist movements.\nthe evidence, it appears to me that the Indonesian government has dealt\nvery harshly with all secession movements.\n\nI know that the head of the Indonesian armed forces for a very long time\nwas Benny Murdani -- a "Christian".  Indonesia has been heavy handed in\nEast Timor for a long time , even when Murdani was head of the armed\nforces.  The people who make up the\nIndonesian government are in general motivated by national interests,\nnot religious ones.\n\n Fred Rice\n darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   \n\n',
'From: jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther)\nSubject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention\nNntp-Posting-Host: mcs213c.cs.umr.edu\nOrganization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO\nLines: 80\n\nIn article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:\n>\n>\n> With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider\n>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought\n>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,\n>would amuse you all...\n>\n>\n> The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern \n>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President\n>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX \n>77706. \n> \n> The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men, \n>Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of \n>this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and\n>two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions. \n> \n> "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv. \n> \n> "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God\n>and the Devil" Page vi." \n> \n> "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public \n>school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29. \n> \n> "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His \n>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."\n>Page 30. \n> \n> "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity \n>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen \n>in the writings of the \'great\' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. \n> \n> "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible \n>faiths." Page 37. \n> \n> "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord \n>Jesus Christ". Page 40. \n> \n> "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its \n>cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the \n>subtlest lies of the \'father of lies.\'" Page 40. \n> \n> "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were \n>founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the \n>Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of \n>repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus \n>Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the \n>dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54. \n> \n>\n> I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,\n>\n>\nTony \n\nI appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the view expressed in\nthe text you quoted. I also appreciate your being amused\nby such determined ignorance. Without taking anything away\nfrom your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.\nI can only hope that that sort of narrow-mindedness will\ndie with the generations that have promoted it. Teach \nyour children well.\n\n<wet blanket mode off>\n\nPax.\n\nJohn\n> \n> \n\n\n-- \n* John W. Luther | Anybody who mistakes my *\n* jluther@cs.umr.edu <-Best for Email | opinions for UMR\'s just *\n* 71140.313@compuserve.com <-$!    |   doesn\'t know UMR.       *\n********************************************************************\n',
"From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 57\n\nIn article <1993Apr15.215833.15970@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:\n\n\n>> What about the Twelve Imams, who he considered incapable of error\n>> or sin? Khomeini supports this view of the Twelve Imans. This is\n>> heresy for the very reasons I gave above. \n\n\n>I would be happy to discuss the  issue of the 12 Imams with you, although\n>my preference would be to move the discussion to another\n>newsgroup.  I feel a philosophy or religion group would be more \n>appropriate. \n\n\nI think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how\ndeviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be\nthe true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam. \nSo that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from \nthe simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And \nif they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how \nsubtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while \nthey are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.\n\n\n>The topic is deeply embedded in the world view of Islam and the\n>esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter\n>into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric\n>religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical\n>substance of man's being and nature.\n\n\nIn my opinion considering any human being as having a substance\nor metaphysical fundamentally different from that of any other human\nbeing _is_ a heretical notion and one proscribed by Islam. \n\n\n>From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You\n>should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable \n>Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the\n>charge of heresy is levelled.\n\n\nAbsolutely! I would be interested in discussing this privately and\nI am interested in hearing how one might try to make the concept of\nerror-free and sinless human beings philosophically consistent with\nthe teachings of the Qur'an. However, _prima facie_ such attemptsa\nare highly susceptible to degenerating into monkery, explicitly\nproscribed by the Qur'an.\n\n\n>As salaam a-laikum\n\nAlaikum Wassalam\n\n\nGregg\n\n",
"From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)\nSubject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword\nOrganization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau\nLines: 18\n\nIn article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu\n(stephen) wrote:\n> tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to \n> keep things in perspective, KS.\n> \n> Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who \n> are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.\n> Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.\n> \n> I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.\n\nChristians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think\nit's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two\ndays showed what the world is really like.\n\nKent\n---\nsandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.\n",
'From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)\nSubject: Re: Origins of the bible.\nOrganization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742\nLines: 14\n\nAdda Wainwright writes:\n\n>He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered at a certain point in\n>time which were syllable-perfect.  This therefore meant that there must have\n>been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted by my acquaintance was\n>approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.\n\nThis is, as far as I know, complete nonsense.  The codification of the bible\nas we have it now came very much later.\n-- \nC. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,\n                  +    but strife closed in the sod.\nmangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:\ntove!mangoe       +    the marv\'lous peace of God."\n',
"From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: Temple University\nLines: 31\nNntp-Posting-Host: vm.temple.edu\nX-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2\n\nIn article <cjkC5sy5G.Ko4@netcom.com>\ncjk@netcom.com writes:\n \n>This was obviously a lot different than the ordinary FBI adventure.\n>\n>I believe that the Federal officers had a conflict of interests here.\n>\n>Throught out the whole affair, it seamed to me that they were chiefly\n>concerned with saving face rather than saving lifes.  Its true that\n>The BD were resisting arrest and that they should have surrendered\n>when they first realized that these where federal officers.  But they\n>didnt.\n \nI'm not sure what you mean by 'saving face' unless you are confusing\nthe FBI with the BATF who are the ones who were in charge of the\noriginal search warrant.\n \n>But when they didnt, the FBI should not have treated as a hostage\n>situation, it wasn't.\n>\n>I think  more discussions, possible independant negotiators, and\n>family intervention should have been used.\n>\nIndependant Negotiators? What was there to negotiate? Any sort of plea\nbargin has to be brought to the court, the negotiators can't negotiate\ncharges or sentences. FBI negotitators did make a deal for the\nDividians to come out. Koresh showed he was not negotiating in good\nfaith and there is no reason to believe independent negotiators\nwould have done any better.\n \nRichard\n",
'From: rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Rob Napier)\nSubject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars\nOrganization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA\nLines: 21\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu\n\nIn article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:\n>\n>\n>"To all whom it may concern -\n>\n[constitution sacrificed to the bandwidth gods]\n\nim glad i finally have heard exactly what the OTO is all about.  i finally\nknow that i can stop looking, content i the knowlege that im not interested.\nit\'s tough enough listening to all the religions who refer to themselves as\n"the One Truth".  How can i possibly accept it from a magical order?  "We have\nall the Answers and will give them to those who join us (and pay dues)?"\nScary.  Besides, answers are easy.  Questions!  now that\'s another story...\n\nrintaw\n\n-- \n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n| Rob Napier - Virginia Tech | There is no gravity, the earth sucks.          |\n| rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  | All in all I\'m just another Schitz In The Hall |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n',
'From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire\nLines: 38\n\n[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer)]\n \n>>I\'m one of those people who does not know what the word objective means\n>>when put next to the word morality.  I assume its an idiom and cannot\n>>be defined by its separate terms.\n \n>>Give it a try.\n \n>Objective morality is morality built from objective values.\n \nFrom A Dictionary of Philosophy, by Anthony Flew:\n \n"Objectivism:  The belief that there are certain moral truths that would\nremain true whatever anyone or everyone thought or desired.  For\ninstance, \'No one should ever deliberately inflict pain on another\nsimply to take pleasure in his suffering\' might be thought of as a\nplausible example.  Even in a world of sadists who all rejected it, the\ncontention remains true, just as \'5 + 7 = 12\' remains correct even if\nthere is no one left to count.  The problem for the objectivist is to\ndetermine the status of moral truths and the method by which they can be\nestablished.  If we accept that such judgements are not reports of what\nis but only relate to what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then\nthey cannot be proved by any facts about the nature of the world.  Nor\ncan they be analytic, since this would involve lack of action-guiding\ncontent;  \'One ought always to do the right thing\' is plainly true in\nvirtue of the vords involved but it is unhelpful as a practical guide to\naction (see analytic and synthetic).  At this point the objectivist may\ntalk of \'self-evident truths\', but can he deny the subjectivist\'s claim\nthat self-evidence is in the mind of the beholder?  If not, what is left\nof the claim that some moral judgements are true?  THe subjectivist may\nwell feel that all that remains is that there are some moral judgements\nwith which he would wish to associate himself.  To hold a moral opinion\nis, he suggests, not to know something to be true but to have\npreferences regarding human activity."\n \nDavid Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu).  Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI\nThis is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher\nmust learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: Jews can\'t hide from keith@cco.\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 16\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <C51DAq.2Fqs@austin.ibm.com>, karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:\n>\n> So, you consider the german poster\'s remark anti-semitic? \n\nWhen someone says:\n\n\t"So after 1000 years of sightseeing and roaming around its \n\tok to come back, kill Palastinians, and get their land back, \n\tright?"\n\nYes, that\'s casual antisemitism.    I can think of plenty of ways\nto criticize Israeli policy without insulting Jews or Jewish history.\n\nCan\'t you?\n\njon \n',
'From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)\nSubject: See? ( was Re: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)\nNntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org\nOrganization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 45\n\nIn article <9473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:\n}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:\n}>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my\n}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree\n}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  \n}>\n}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,\n}>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.\n}\n}Another dodge.  Oh well.  I\'m no match for your amazing repertoire\n}of red herrings and smoke screens.  \n}\n}You asked for an apology.  I\'m not going to apologize for pointing out\n}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying\n}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of\n}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,\n}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor\n}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor\n}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling\n}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.\n\nHow about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:\nIn 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu\n>Jim has been threatening\n\t- but no "threat" produced \n>once he realized that\n\t- display of telepathy\n>threatening to quote me\n\t- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)\n>responding Jim\'s threat to quote me\n\t- in spite of claimed threat never being given\n>Jim, preparing to...\n\t- in spite of it never happening.  telepathy or precognition?\n>Jim again, still mystified\n\t- unsubstantiated and untrue.  more telepathy?  Or maybe telempathy?\n>Jim, still scandalized\n\t- unsubstantiated again.  Seems to be a habit...\n\nHaving more trouble with reality, it appears.  Why get bothered with the facts when\nyou appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?\n\n\n*yawn*\n\n\n',
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 28\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <1993Apr17.225127.25062@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:\n>You exagerate to the point of libel.  I gave only unpopular reasons\n>deliberately.  Or do you think that we should have let Iraq absorb Kuwait?\n>I could make the tired old 1939 Poland comparison, but I think you\'ve\n>heard it.  But the principle aplies, never play a Chamberlain and\n>roll over to another country being invaded.  That only invites further \n>invasions.\n\n\tPerhaps we ought not to have supported a known genocidist?\n\tProvided him with weapon systems, tactical support, technology,\netc.\n\n\tWe made Suddam Hussein.\n\n\tWhat did Bush call him? Oh yes, an ally and a freind.\n\n\n---  \n\n  " I\'d Cheat on Hillary Too."\n\n   John Laws\n   Local GOP Reprehensitive\n   Extolling "Traditional Family Values."\n\n\n\n\n',
'From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 34\nNNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu\n\nlivesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n\n>>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What\n>>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals?\n>>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to \n>>>assume your conclusion.\n>>Which conclusion?\n>You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is\n>instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.\n\nSee, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said\nthat it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive\nbehavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply\nhuman terms to non-humans.  I think that even if someone is not conscious\nof an alternative, this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.\n\n>>You don\'t think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human\n>>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given\n>>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral.\n>You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that\n>the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior \n>pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for\n>example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would\n>not call a morality.\n\nI try to show it, but by your definition, it can\'t be shown.\n\nAnd, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be\ndefined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However,\nit seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of\nphyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least\nsome free will.\n\nkeith\n',
'From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Boston University Physics Department\nLines: 27\n\nIn article <1qlb7oINN684@shelley.u.washington.edu> \njimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes:\n\n\n>20:52 P.S.T.  I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing\n>wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah.  Not only that, but Allah \n>himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a\n>few bones and we get down.  Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends \n>over, and invites me to take a spin around the block.  Wow.\n\n\n>20:56 P.S.T.  I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a \n>commitment than I\'m ready for, so I say "Man, I\'ve got some\n>programming to do.  Gotta go.  I\'ll call you."\n\n\n>20:59 P.S.T   Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.\n\nWhat loyalty!\n\nJim, it seems you\'ve been reading a little too much Russell Hoban\nlately. As Hemingway said, my imitators always imitate the _bad_\naspects of my writing. Hoban would, no doubt, say the same here.\n\n\n\nGregg\n',
"From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)\nSubject: Re: Question for those with popular morality\nOrganization: Microsoft Corp.\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 57\n\n\n(hudson)\n>/These people hurt their own bodies.  Why can't they hurt other peoples bodies\n>/too?  \n>\n(me)\n>Because other people might not *want* to be hurt, Hudson.  And hurting\n>them against their will is a violation of choice.\n\n/(hudson)\n/So. Why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative.\n\n\nI don't believe I ever said that morality was all relative.\n\nWhat I said was that I can make my mind up on my own, thank you, and that \nyou don't have the right to tell others what to think.\n\nI think that you will find that in most moral systems, there is \na respect for human life and the dignity of the person.  It is all the\nstuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between \nprimitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us.\n\n\n\n/(hudson)\n/Maybe (the insane lover of pain might reason) if other people experienced\n/enough pain, they might learn to enjoy it, too.  \n\nFine.  There is still the clinical definition of crazy.  And this also\ninvolves a violation of free will, because the insane lover of your\nlittle example would be inflicting pain on a non-willing subject.\n\nTry again.\n\n\n\n\n(hudson)\n>/You have to have other premises to derive this.  \n>\n(me)\n>No, you don't.  That is a patently false statement.\n\n/(hudson)\n/You have to have some sort of premise about choice or self-awareness.\n\n\nNo, you do not.  I demonstrated to you the example of the football\nteam which doesn't require premises about freedom of choice or \nsentience/self-awareness.  \n\nAs I said, you are wrong, and you don't seem to know much about moral \nsystems.  If I were you, I would take David Bold's suggestion and do some \nreading on the subject before you try preaching about it.\n\n\n",
"From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)\nSubject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?\nOrganization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA\nLines: 58\n\nIn <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:\n\n|Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.\n\nPlease cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.\n\n|You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do \n|you?\n\nWhy not?\n\n|If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.\n\nCheck the sig.\n\n|The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the\n|individual.\n\nSociety does not have rights only individuals have rights.\n\n|Go ahead, call me a commie,\n\nOK, your a commie.\n\n|but you'd be singing a different\n|tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.\n\nYou think you have a right to rape anyone? No wonder you don't care about\nthe rightws of others.\n\n|He broke the law,\n\nPlease indicate which law you feel Koresh broke, and when was he convicted of\nsaid crime.\n\n|he was a threat to society,\n\nSo you feel that owning guns makes him a threat to society. When are y ou\ngoing to start going after knives and baseball bats as well.\nOr do you feel that someone who spouts unpopular ideas is by definition a\nthreat to society.\n\n|they did there job - simple.\n\nIt is simple if you think that there job is to assualt civilians.\n\n|>\tSupport your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth\n|>Amendment rights, lest they be taken away from you just as the FBI did\n|>to the Davidians. Think about it.\n\n|I'll support them all (except no. 2)\n\nIn other words you don't support any of them.\n-- \nMob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government\nIt ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.\nWilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.\nMark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com\n",
'From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel)\nSubject: Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin)\nOrganization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen\nLines: 27\nNNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de\n\nIn <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:\n\n>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:\n\n>>1) We\'re not just talking about proteins.  In fact, we shouldn\'t be\n>>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I\'m\n>>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de*\n>>*novo*\n>>the proteins did not form randomly.\n>> \n\n>Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.).  You state that\n>proteins did not form randomly.  That seems to be my point.  \n\nWell, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of\nthe current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you\nwould be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were\nassembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA-\nbased replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins\nwere assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.\n\nNow respond to 2. :-)\n--Cornelius.\n-- \n/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen    */ \n/* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de                             */\n/* "People are DNA\'s way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous)     */\n',
'Subject: Re: Contradictions\nFrom: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\nLines: 49\n\nIn article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes:\n>: \n>: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"?  You theists\n>: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe\n>: are two different places.  Put God outside the universe and you\n>: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the\n>: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of\n>: physics on it.\n>\n>1.  God is outside the universe.\n>2.  Things outside the universe do not have \'the ability to interact\n>    with the inside of the universe\'.\n>3.  Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe.\n>\n>(2) has no basis whatsoever.  You seem to have positive knowledge\n>about this.\n\n\t(2) is a corrallary of (1).\n\n\tThe negation of (2) would contridict (1).\n\n>\n>: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules\n>: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no\n>: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics.\n>: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and\n>: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you\n>: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of\n>: them, beyond measurement.  To me, beyond measurement means it can\n>: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo,\n>: your god is IRRELEVANT.\n>\n>1.  God is beyond measure.\n>2.  Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on\n>    reality.\n>3.  Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality.\n>\n>(2) has no basis whatsoever.\n\n  (2) Is a corrallary of (1)\n\n  The negation of (2) would contradict (1).\n--\n\n\n       "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.  \n        They do what god tells them to do. "\n\n        S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) \n',
"From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)\nSubject: Re: some thoughts.\nOrganization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque\nLines: 12\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: vesta.unm.edu\nKeywords: Dan Bissell\n\nIn article <healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:\n[deletia wrt pathetic Jee-zus posting by Bissel] \n> I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you'\n> ve given me.\n\nNO. He hasn't extended to US the courtesy you've shown us, so he don't get no\npie. Tammy, I respect your beliefs because you don't try to stamp them into\nmy being. I have scorn for posters whose sole purpose appears to be to\nevangelize.\n \n> \n> Tammy\n",
'From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)\nSubject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah\'s Witnesses\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University\nLines: 48\nNNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu\n\nIn article <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes:\n>:> God is eternal.    [A = B]\n>:> Jesus is God.      [C = A]\n>:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]\n>\n>:> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of\n>:> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore\n>:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.\n>\n>Everything isn\'t always so logical....\n>\n>Mercedes is a car.\n>That girl is Mercedes.\n>Therefore, that girl is a car?\n\n\tThis is not  strickly correct. Only by incorrect application of the \nrules of language, does it seem to work.\n\n\tThe Mercedes in the first premis, and the one in the second are NOT \nthe same Mercedes. \n\n\tIn your case, \n\n\tA = B\n\tC = D\n\t\n\tA and D are NOT equal. One is a name of a person, the other the\nname of a object. You can not simply extract a word without taking the \ncontext into account. \n\n\tOf course, your case doesn\'t imply that A = D.\n\n\tIn his case, A does equal D.\n\n\n\tTry again...\n\n---\n\n        "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that \n        say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more \n        virile men."\n\n        Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )\n        April 4, 1993\n\n        The one TRUE Muslim left in the world. \n\n',
"From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 11\n\nIn article <1993Apr16.211458.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>\nkmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:\n \n(deletion)\n>Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The\n>ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years\n>automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the\n>Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't.\n \nThat's wrong. They can.\n   Benedikt\n",
'From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)\nSubject: Re: Biblical Rape\nOrganization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <1993Apr05.174537.14962@watson.ibm.com>\nstrom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:\n \n>\n>In article <16BA7F16C.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:\n>\n>I didn\'t have time to read the rest of the posting, but\n>I had to respond to this.\n>\n>I am absolutely NOT a "Messianic Jew".\n>\n \nAnother mistake. Sorry, I should have read alt.,messianic more carefully.\n   Benedikt\n',
'From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)\nSubject: Re: Societal basis for morality\nOrganization: Florida State University, but I don\'t speak for them\nLines: 13\n\nIn article <merlyn.735422443@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:\n>Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children\n>what to pray, or not to pray.  Many people confuse "you can\'t\n>tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren\'t allowed\n>to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.\n\nOr perhaps it\'s because they think that all governmental bodies should be in\nthe business of suppressing all beliefs other than their own, or else they\'re\nsome sort of Satanic Humanist Conspiracy.\n\nIt\'s the old "if you\'re not for us you\'re against us" bit.\n\n-EMP\n',
'From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)\nSubject: Re: Davidians and compassion\nOrganization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.\nLines: 18\n\n\nIn article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:\n|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca> \n|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:\n|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  \n|> >Too easy?  \n|> \n|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians." \n|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?\n\nAs a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not\nbe so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human\nand imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is\nopportunity for repentence and forgiveness.\n\nGod be with you,\n\nMalcolm Lee  :)\n',
"From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)\nSubject: Re: <Political Atheists?\nOrganization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena\nLines: 14\nNNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu\n\nbobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:\n\n>To show that the examples I and others\n>have provided are *not* counter examples of your supposed inherent\n>moral hypothesis, you have to successfully argue that\n>domestication removes or alters this morality.\n\nI think that domestication will change behavior to a large degree.\nDomesticated animals exhibit behaviors not found in the wild.  I\ndon't think that they can be viewed as good representatives of the\nwild animal kingdom, since they have been bred for thousands of years\nto produce certain behaviors, etc.\n\nkeith\n",
'From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.\nLines: 51\nIn-Reply-To: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu\'s message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:32:04 GMT\nX-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24\n\nIn <C5L1tG.K5q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:\n\n> If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I \n> would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong.  My \n> basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities.  My\n> basis is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral\n> abhorrences,\n\n      AH! But what, exactly, is "inherently abhorrent" and WHY is it so?\nWhat you\'re saying is, in effect, "I think some things are repulsive,\nand I know a whole bunch of other people who agree with me, so they\nshould be deemed absolutely immoral now and forever, period".\n\n      Which in and of itself is nice enough; to some extent I agree with\nyou. But I do _not_ agree that things are \'inherently\' or \'absolutely\'\nimmoral; they are labeled \'immoral\' each for its own good reason, and if\nthe reason can even theoretically change, then so can the label.\n\n[...]\n> Yes, that\'s vague, and the only way I know off the top of my head to\n> defend it is to say that all humans are similarly made. Yes, that falls\n> into the trap of creation,\n\n      No it doesn\'t. Humans are to some extent similar, because we all\nbelong to the same species; that that species has evolved is another\nstory altogether. To a certain extent evolution can even lend credence\nto moral absolutism (of a flavour).\n\n[...]\n> My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness, \n> love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt,\n> hatred, disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty.\n\n      You\'re saying morality is what\'ll keep society alive and kicking.\nIt is, I think, up to a point; but societies are not all alike, and\nneither are their moralities.\n\n> No, I haven\'t been everywhere and \n> seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don\'t have to, since I hold that\n> we were all created similarly.\n\n      Similar != identical.\n\n> If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say\n> so, and I\'ll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.\n\n      No, it\'s falsifiable through finding someoe who was "created\ndifferent", whatever that might be in the "real" world.\n\n-- \n  Disclaimer?   "It\'s great to be young and insane!"\n',
'From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)\nSubject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie\nOrganization: sgi\nLines: 24\nNNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com\n\nIn article <115468@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:\n|> In article <1qg79g$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:\n|> \n|> >You are amazed that I find it difficult to grasp it when\n|> >people justify death-threats against Rushdie with the \n|> >claim "he was born Muslim?"\n|> \n|> This is empty rhetoric. I am amazed at your inability to understand what\n|> I am saying not that you find it difficult to "grasp it when people\n|> justify death-threats...". I find it amazing that your ability to\n|> consider abstract questions in isolation. You seem to believe in the\n|> falsity of principles by the consequence of their abuse. You must *hate*\n|> physics!\n\nYou\'re closer than you might imagine. I certainly despised living\nunder the Soviet regime when it purported to organize society according\nto what they fondly imagined to be the "objective" conclusions of\nMarxist dialectic.\n\nBut I don\'t hate Physics so long as some clown doesn\'t start trying\nto control my life on the assumption that we are all interchangeable\natoms, rather than individual human beings.\n\njon. \n', "From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)\nSubject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???\nOrganization: University of Oulu, Finland\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]\nLines: 19\n\nI must correct the following in my previous posting:\n \n: If you are trying to be objective, you must also recognise that\n: \n: 1) the gospels are not independent sources, on the contrary, they\n: share much of the same material\n\nI should have been a bit more careful here - the gospels not only\ntell us about the same events, they usually use the same wordings.\nTextual analyses show that Matthew and Luke probably had a common\nsource, which may have influenced Mark, too.\n\nPetri\n\n--\n ___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.\n!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of\n ' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.\n *' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.\n", 'From: (Rashid)\nSubject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]\nNntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179\nOrganization: NH\nLines: 76\n\nIn article <1993Apr14.131032.15644@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,\ndarice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:\n> \n> It is my understanding that it is generally agreed upon by the ulema\n> [Islamic scholars] that Islamic law applies only in an Islamic country,\n> of which the UK is not. Furthermore, to take the law into one\'s own\n> hands is a criminal act, as these are matters for the state, not for\n> individuals. Nevertheless, Khomeini offered a cash prize for people to\n> take the law into their own hands -- something which, to my\n> understanding, is against Islamic law.\n\nYes, this is also my understanding of the majority of Islamic laws.\nHowever, I believe there are also certain legal rulings which, in all\nfive schools of law (4 sunni and 1 jaffari), can be levelled against\nmuslim or non-muslims, both within and outside dar-al-islam. I do\nnot know if apostasy (when accompanied by active, persistent, and\nopen hostility to Islam) falls into this category of the law. I do know\nthat\nhistorically, apostasy has very rarely been punished at all, let alone\nby the death penalty.\n\nMy understanding is that Khomeini\'s ruling was not based on the\nlaw of apostasy (alone). It was well known that Rushdie was an apostate\nlong before he wrote the offending novel and certainly there is no\nprecedent in the Qur\'an, hadith, or in Islamic history for indiscriminantly\nlevelling death penalties for apostasy.\n\nI believe the charge levelled against Rushdie was that of "fasad". This\nruling applies both within and outside the domain of an\nIslamic state and it can be carried out by individuals. The reward was\nnot offered by Khomeini but by individuals within Iran.\n\n\n> Stuff deleted\n> Also, I think you are muddying the issue as you seem to assume that\n> Khomeini\'s fatwa was issued due to the _distribution_ of the book. My\n> understanding is that Khomeini\'s fatwa was issued in response to the\n> _writing_ and _publishing_ of the book. If my view is correct, then\n> your viewpoint that Rushdie was sentenced for a "crime in progress" is\n> incorrect.\n> \nI would concur that the thrust of the fatwa (from what I remember) was\nlevelled at the author and all those who assisted in the publication\nof the book. However, the charge of "fasad" can encompass a\nnumber of lesser charges. I remember that when diplomatic relations\nbroke off between Britain and Iran over the fatwa - Iran stressed that\nthe condemnation of the author, and the removal of the book from\ncirculation were two preliminary conditions for resolving the\n"crisis". But you are correct to point out that banning the book was not\nthe main thrust behind the fatwa. Islamic charges such as fasad are\nlevelled at people, not books.\n\nThe Rushdie situation was followed in Iran for several months before the\nissuance of the fatwa. Rushdie went on a media blitz,\npresenting himself as a lone knight guarding the sacred values of\nsecular democracy and mocking the foolish concerns of people\ncrazy enough to actually hold their religious beliefs as sacred. \nFanning the flames and milking the controversy to boost\nhis image and push the book, he was everywhere in the media. Then\nMuslim demonstrators in several countries were killed while\nprotesting against the book. Rushdie appeared momentarily\nconcerned, then climbed back on his media horse to once again\nattack the Muslims and defend his sacred rights. It was at this\npoint that the fatwa on "fasad" was issued.\n\nThe fatwa was levelled at the person of Rushdie - any actions of\nRushdie that feed the situation contribute to the legitimization of\nthe ruling. The book remains in circulation not by some independant\nwill of its own but by the will of the author and the publishers. The fatwa\nagainst the person of Rushdie encompasses his actions as well. The\ncrime was certainly a crime in progress (at many levels) and was being\nplayed out (and played up) in the the full view of the media.\n\nP.S. I\'m not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also\napplies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella\nof the "fasad" ruling.\n', "From: elw@mayo.edu\nSubject: Re: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed\nReply-To: elw@jaguar.sky2\nOrganization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus\nLines: 11\n\n\nThe Nicene Creed\n\nWE BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.\nAnd in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptur\n\n\n\n\n\nes, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.\n\nAnd we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.\n\n\n", 'From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu\nSubject: THE DIVINE MASTERS\nOrganization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire\nLines: 208\n\n \n\n THE DIVINE MASTERS \n \n Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that \n Jesus Christ was a Divine Master, and a projection of God \n into the physical world, God Incarnate. \n \n But there are some very important related facts that \n Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of \n most other world religions. \n \n First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-\n STANDING. There is ALWAYS at least one such Divine Master \n (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL TIMES, \n a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both before and \n after the life of Jesus. \n \n The followers of some of these Masters founded the \n world\'s major religions, usually PERVERTING the teachings of \n their Master in the process. Christians, for example, added \n THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the \n teaching of REincarnation. \n \n Secondly, and more importantly, after a particular \n Master physically dies and leaves this world, there is \n NOTHING that He can do for ANYbody except for the relatively \n few people that He INITIATED while He was still PHYSICALLY \n alive. (THAT IS SIMPLY THE WAY GOD SET THINGS UP IN THE \n UNIVERSES.) \n\n Therefore, all those Christians who worship Jesus, and \n pray to Jesus, and expect Jesus to return and save them from \n their sins, are only KIDDING THEMSELVES, and have allowed \n themselves to be DUPED by a religion that was mostly \n MANUFACTURED by the Romans. \n \n And emotional "feelings" are a TOTALLY DECEIVING \n indicator for religious validity. \n \n These things are similarly true for followers of most \n other major world religions, including Islam. \n \n Thirdly, the primary function of each Master is to tune \n His Initiates into the "AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM" or "SOUND \n CURRENT", (referred to as "THE WORD" in John 1:1-5, and as \n "The River of Life" in Revelation 22:1), and to personally \n guide each of them thru the upper levels of Heaven while they \n are still connected to their living physical bodies by a \n "silver cord". \n \n True Salvation, which completes a Soul\'s cycles of \n REincarnation in the physical and psychic planes, is achieved \n only by reaching at least the "SOUL PLANE", which is five \n levels or universes above the physical universe, and this \n canNOT be done without the help of a PHYSICALLY-Living Divine \n Master. \n \n One such Divine Master alive today is an American, Sri \n Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the \n "Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis, \n (P.O. Box 27300; zip 55427). \n \n Another Divine Master is Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, now \n living in Punjab, India, and is associated with the "Sant \n Mat" organization. \n \n One of the classic books on this subject is "THE PATH OF \n THE MASTERS" (Radha Soami Books, P.O. Box 242, Gardena, CA \n 90247), written in 1939 by Dr. Julian Johnson, a theologian \n and surgeon who spent the last years of his life in India \n studying under and closely observing the Sant Mat Master of \n that time, Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji. \n \n Several of the Eckankar books, including some authored \n by Sri Paul Twitchell or Sri Harold Klemp, can be found in \n most public and university libraries and some book stores, or \n obtained thru inter-library loan. The book "ECKANKAR--THE \n KEY TO SECRET WORLDS", by Sri Paul Twitchell, is ANOTHER \n classic. \n \n Many Christians are likely to confuse the Masters with \n the "Anti-Christ", which is or was to be a temporary world \n dictator during the so-called "last days". But the Masters \n don\'t ever rule, even when asked or expected to do so as \n Jesus was. \n \n People who continue following Christianity, Islam, or \n other orthodox religions with a physically-DEAD Master, will \n CONTINUE on their cycles of REincarnation, between the \n Psychic Planes and this MISERABLE physical world, until they \n finally accept Initiation from a PHYSICALLY-LIVING Divine \n Master. \n \n \n \n RE-INCARNATION\n \n The book "HERE AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, \n describes several kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation \n as a FACT OF LIFE, including HYPNOTIC REGRESSIONS to past \n lives [about 50% accurate; the subconscious mind sometimes \n makes things up, especially with a bad hypnotist], \n SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by young children, some of \n whom can identify their most recent previous relatives, \n homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL of past life experi-\n ences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off land while travel-\n ing there for the first time on vacation), the psychic read-\n ings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN SUPPORTING STATEMENTS \n FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including Matthew 17:11-13 (John the \n Baptist was the REINCARNATION of Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How \n can a person POSSIBLY sin before he is born, unless he LIVED \n BEFORE?!). [ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION". Later \n versions are PER-VERSIONS! ] \n \n Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc., \n typically originate from a person\'s PAST LIVES. For example, \n a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually \n results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE. \n And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to \n another person being met for the first time in THIS life, \n because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS \n INCARNATION. \n\n The teaching of REincarnation also includes the LAW OF \n KARMA (Galatians 6:7, Revelation 13:10, etc.). People would \n behave much better toward each other if they knew that their \n actions in the present will surely be reaped by them in the \n future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION! \n\n\n\n "2nd COMINGS"\n\n If a Divine Master physically dies ("translates") \n before a particular Initiate of His does, then when that \n Initiate physically dies ("translates"), the Master will meet \n him on the Astral level and take him directly to the Soul \n Plane. This is the ONE AND ONLY correct meaning of a 2nd \n Coming. It is an INDIVIDUAL experience, NOT something that \n happens for everyone all at once. People who are still \n waiting for Jesus\' "2nd Coming" are WAITING IN VAIN. \n \n \n \n PLANES OF EXISTENCE\n\n The physical universe is the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN \n major levels of existence. Above the Physical Plane is the \n Astral Plane, the Causal Plane, the Mental Plane, the Etheric \n Plane (often counted as the upper part of the Mental Plane), \n the Soul Plane, and several higher Spiritual Planes. The \n Soul Plane is the FIRST TRUE HEAVEN, (counting upward from \n the Physical). The planes between (but NOT including) the \n Physical and Soul Planes are called the Psychic Planes. \n \n It is likely that ESP, telepathy, astrological \n influences, radionic effects, biological transmutations [See \n the 1972 book with that title.], and other phenomena without \n an apparent physical origin, result from INTERACTIONS between \n the Psychic Planes and the Physical Plane. \n \n The major planes are also SUB-DIVIDED. For example, a \n sub-plane of the Astral Plane is called "Hades", and the \n Christian Hell occupies a SMALL part of it, created there \n LESS THAN 2000 YEARS AGO by the EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH by some \n kind of black magic or by simply teaching its existence in a \n THREATENING manner. The Christian "Heaven" is located \n elsewhere on the Astral Plane. Good Christians will go there \n for a short while and then REincarnate back to Earth. \n \n \n \n SOUND CURRENT vs. BLIND FAITH\n\n The Christian religion demands of its followers an \n extraordinary amount of BLIND FAITH backed up by little more \n than GOOD FEELING (which is TOTALLY DECEIVING). \n \n If a person is not HEARING some form of the "SOUND \n CURRENT" ("THE WORD", "THE BANI", "THE AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM"), \n then his cycles of REINCARNATION in this MISERABLE world WILL \n CONTINUE. \n \n The "SOUND CURRENT" manifests differently for different \n Initiates, and can sound like a rushing wind, ocean waves on \n the sea shore, buzzing bees, higher-pitched buzzing sound, a \n flute, various heavenly music, or other sounds. In Eckankar, \n Members start hearing it near the end of their first year as \n a Member. This and other experiences (such as "SOUL TRAVEL") \n REPLACE blind faith. \n \n\n\n For more information, answers to your questions, etc., \n please consult my CITED SOURCES (3 books, 2 addresses). \n\n\n\n UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this \n IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. \n\n\n Robert E. McElwaine\n 2nd Initiate in Eckankar,\n (but not an agent thereof)\n\n \n', 'From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nSubject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?\nOrganization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.\nLines: 26\n\nIn article <1qid04$fct@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O\'Dwyer) writes:\n>\n>I don\'t see anything special about theism in general that makes it a \n>particular hazard (more so than say, stupidity, anarchy, or patriotism).   \n>Of course, it depends on the religion, but I see nothing about believing \n>in gods that in and of itself entails or even promotes xenophobia, genocide, \n>etc.  \n\n  If the emphasis is on the "in general", then of course you\'re\n  correct, since you haven\'t really said anything.  If we restrict\n  our observations to practiced religions, there are lots of\n  examples of god mandated genocide.  Just ask the Canaanites.  The\n  point is that if you believe in a god, and if you believe he has\n  ordered you to eliminate an entire race, you will likely make the\n  attempt.  After all, if it was OK in the past, it could surely be\n  OK in the present.\n\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n',
'Subject: A word of advice\nFrom: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)\nOrganization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.\nSummary: was Re: Yeah, Right\nLines: 14\n\nIn article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:\n>\n>I\'ve said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you\n>might have caught on by now.  And there is no "alternative", but the point\n>is, "rationality" isn\'t an alternative either.  The problems of metaphysical\n>and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot\n>solve them.\n\nHow does that saying go: Those who say it can\'t be done shouldn\'t interrupt\nthose who are doing it.\n\nJim\n--\nHave you washed your brain today?\n',
'From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)\nSubject: Re: free moral agency\nNntp-Posting-Host: crchh410\nOrganization: BNR, Inc.\nLines: 24\n\nIn article <house.734841689@helios>, house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:\n|> marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) writes:\n|> \n|> >healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:\n|> \n|> >>     you might think "oh yeah. then why didn\'t god destroy it in the bud \n|> >>before it got to the point it is now--with millions through the \n|> >>ages suffering along in life?"\n|> >>      the only answer i know is that satan made the claim that his way was \n|> >>better than God\'s.  God is allowing satan the chance to prove that his way \n|> >>is better than God\'s.  we all know what that has brought.     \n|> \n|> >Come on!  God is allowing the wishes of one individual to supercede the\n|> >well-being of billions?  I seriously doubt it.  Having read the Bible\n|> >twice, I never got the impression that God and Satan were working in some\n|> >sort of cooperative arrangement.\n|> \n|> Read the book of Job.\n|> \n\nOh, that was just a bet.\n\n\nBrian /-|-\\  \n',
'From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nSubject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars\nOrganization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)\nLines: 20\nReply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu\n\n\nIn a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:\n\n>\n>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible\n>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found\n>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the\n>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,\n>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be\n>guided.\n>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.\n>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of\n>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,\n>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics\n>\n\n\tUp to that point I thought you were talking about the\nRosicrucian Order... :-)  [No offense intended!]\n\nTony\n',
'From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)\nSubject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is\nOrganization: Sun\nLines: 14\nNNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun\n\nIn article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:\n>My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than\n> \n>  subjective, or varying and changing.\n>\n\nLets see what the dictionary has to say:\n\nobjective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished\nfrom a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced\nby emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.\n\neric\n\n',
'From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)\nSubject: Re: Islamic Banks (was Re: Slavery\nReply-To: vdp@mayo.edu\nOrganization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN\nLines: 39\n\nIn article 28833@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au,  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:\n#In <1993Apr14.143121.26376@bmw.mayo.edu> vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt) writes:\n#>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements*\n#>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words\n#>floating stocks in your company). \n#\n#No, interest is different from a return on an investment.  For one\n#thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return\n#(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even\n#lose money).  The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the\n#investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the\n#borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank.\n#\n\nBut is it different from stocks ?  If you wish to call an investor in stocks as\na banker, well then its your choice .....\n\n#>Relabeling does not make it interest free !!\n#\n#It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.\n\nIt  *is* relabeling ...\nAlso its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as\ndividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your\nso called *bank*)  is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some\nthing back in return .... \n\nAlso have you heard of junk bonds ???\n\n\n---Vinayak\n-------------------------------------------------------\n                                           vinayak dutt\n                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu\n\n             standard disclaimers apply\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n',
'From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)\nSubject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)\nOrganization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln\t\nLines: 20\nDistribution: world\nNNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu\n\nmuttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:\n\n\n>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco\n>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.\n>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don\'t the \n>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day \n>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn\'t Mr. Clinton \n>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn\'t it a cult too ?"\n\n\nA good point.  What helps to keep such things going is the public\nattitude that one should have "faith""; that some authority from\non high should not be subjected to mere reason.  Couple this with a\nvariety of personality quirks, mojor and minor mental illnesses, and\nego of would-be leaders, and you get all the variety of cults and \nreligions that people subscribe to.\n\n\n.\n',
'From: ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray)\nSubject: Re: The Bible and Abortion\nOrganization: Louisiana Tech University\nLines: 38\nDistribution: world,local\nNNTP-Posting-Host: ee02.engr.latech.edu\nX-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]\n\nJames J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:\n: Exodus 21:22-25:\n\n:        22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with\n:           child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further\n:           injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman\'s husband may\n:           demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.\n:        23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint\n:           as a penalty life for life,\n:        24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,\n:        25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.\n\n: The most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that if\n: men in a fight strike a woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty\n: is only a fine.  If, however, the woman is injured or dies, the\n: *lex talionis* doctrine of "an eye for an eye" applies.  This is the\n: Jewish interpretation, and is supported by Jewish commentaries on\n: these verses.\n:    This is quite an embarrassment for pro-lifer Christians, so there is\n: of course an alternate explanation.  The alternative interprets the\n: word "miscarriage" to mean "premature birth"--i.e., the child is born\n: alive--and "further injury" to mean injury to either the woman or\n: the fetus.  This is not a straightforward interpretation, it is not\n: (so far as I know) supported by any Jewish commentaries, and it does\n: not appeared to be supported by any other part of the Bible.\n\nWhat if any, historical reference do we have to abortion at this time?  Did\nthe ancient Jew have appropriate reference to understand abortion? (I am\ntruly asking, not making a point veiled as a question).  If there is \nlittle understanding of the medical procedure we know as abortion, it is\nnot surprising the Bible makes little reference to it, as it makes little\nreference to nuclear power and contamination.\n\nWhile your interpretation is a reasonable one, I see no reason to reject\nthe other out of hand.  The King Jimmy translation says "if there is no\nfurther mischief."  This does not necessarily imply to the woman.  I know\nif my wife we expecting and someone cause her to spontaneously abort, we\nwould feel that a life was truly taken, not simply a process halted.\n',
'Subject: Re: islamic authority over women\nFrom: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)\nOrganization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.\nLines: 46\n\nIn article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu) snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:\n)\n)That\'s your mistake.  It would be better for the children if the mother\n)raised the child.\n)\n)One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",\n)because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.\n)Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my\n)point.\n)\n)But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men\n)stayed home and raised the child.  That is something false made up by\n)feminists that seek a status above men.  You do not recognize the fact\n)that men and women have natural differences.  Not just physically, but\n)mentally also.\n) [...]\n)Your logic.  I didn\'t say americans were the cause of worlds problems, I\n)said atheists.\n) [...]\n)Becuase they have no code of ethics to follow, which means that atheists\n)can do whatever they want which they feel is right.  Something totally\n)based on their feelings and those feelings cloud their rational\n)thinking.\n) [...]\n)Yeah.  I didn\'t say that all atheists are bad, but that they could be\n)bad or good, with nothing to define bad or good.\n)\n\n  Awright!  Bobby\'s back, in all of his shit-for-brains glory.  Just\n  when I thought he\'d turned the corner of progress, his Thorazine\n  prescription runs out.  \n\n  I\'d put him in my kill file, but man, this is good stuff.  I wish\n  I had his staying power.\n\n  Fortunately, I learned not to take him too seriously long,long,long\n  ago.\n\n/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \n\nBob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM \n\nThey said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,\nand sank Manhattan out at sea.\n\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n',
"From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)\nSubject: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed\nOrganization: University at Buffalo\nLines: 28\nNews-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41\nNntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu\n\nGordon Banks quoted and added...\n\ngb> In article <C50M5p.Eoz@acsu.buffalo.edu>\ngb> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:\ngb>\ngb> >\ngb> >  Christians have professed for more than 1660 years the Nicene\ngb> >Creed, a statement of beliefs drawn from the truths of Scripture\ngb> >that was officially accepted by a council of church bishops\ngb> >and leaders at Nicea in 325 A.D. Christians still recite\ngb> >this creed regularly in public worship.\ngb> >\ngb>\ngb> So prior to 325 AD there were no Christians?  Or all of them really\ngb> believed the Nicean creed even before it was formulated?  Do you\ngb> really believe such an absurdity?  I'm afraid you do.  \n\n     No.\n     I really don't. Honest.\n\n     The Nicene Creed, as I mentioned above, is a brief statement of\n     beliefs that are derived from Scripture. That this certain list\n     did not exist earlier does not indicate that the beliefs summarized \n     in in did not exist before the formula was derived.\n\n=============================\nRobert Weiss\npsyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu\n",
'From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)\nSubject: What we can learn from the Waco wackos\nOrganization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.\nDistribution: usa\nLines: 34\n\n\n\tThere are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:\n1)\tWhen they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What\'s\nit all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which\nmeans:\n2)\tThere\'s still plenty of  to be made in the False Jesus business\nby enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:\n3)\tOnce you\'ve separated the pinks from their green, don\'t blow it all\non automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a\nlot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just\nshrug you off as long as:\n4)\tYou never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If\n"David Koresh" hand\'t started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he\'d\nbe working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to\nthe mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:\n5)\tWhen you start shooting at cops, they\'re likely to shoot back.  And \nmost of \'em are better shots than you are.\n\n\tIn short:\n\t- P.T. Barnum was right \n\t\tand\n\t- Stupidity is self-correcting\nThus endeth the lesson.\n\n\t************************************************************\n\t*  \tThe_Doge of South St. Louis\t\t\t   *\n\t*\t\tDobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)\t   *\n\t*\t"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm\t   *\n\t*\t\t88.1 FM\t\tSt. Louis Community Radio  *\n\t*  "You\'ll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *\n\t*\t\t\t-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"\t\t   *\n\t************************************************************\n\n\n',
'Organization: City University of New York\nFrom: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>\nSubject:    re: ABORTION and private health insurance\nLines: 22\n\n>In <1qid8s\$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)\nwrites:\n\n  >I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes\n  >coverage for abortion.  I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of\n  >conscience.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may\n  >be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is\n  >murder.  I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion\n  >coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.\n\nI share Dennis\'s outrage over a similar manner.  I have recently become aware\nthat my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries\nsuffered by Christians.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums\nmay be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine\npunishment for their sinful conduct.  In addition these folks are able to\navail thems`