HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trumpet-user@dkfz-heidelberg.de (Don Ward)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
Organization: German Cancer Center
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:50:55 GMT


Scott Gibson writes:

>I challenge you to describe an experiment similar in its simplicity
>and reliability, which serves to show that the Christian God exists.

>Finally, evidence which is not reliable cannot result in judgment.  When one
>ponders a decision, one discards those pieces of evidence which cannot be
>validated, and which are not therefore reliable.

Do you only use 'proven' evidence to make decisions?? If you did, i'm sure
that your life would be very boring. Just try to prove that a woman fits
your personality befor you get involved with her, and then tell us how you
did it. Tell us how you 'proved' that you present career was the 'right' 
one for you. I have yet to meet anyone who makes the majority of his
decisions based on provable facts. Sure when you build a car, or a house,
you only use methods and materials that have been proven, however 
interpersonal science is not developed to the point where you can prove
much of anything. Very many of lifes decisions are based on feelings. Can
you 'prove' a feeling? Do you write everything on your computer, or do you
prefer a pencle and paper? Why? When you try to base all of reality on
proven facts, then you must deny most of reality, because we don't even
know enough to ask all the questions that need to be proved.
The thousends of people who have 'belived' in a God had reasons to do that.
It is true that the reasons could be wrong, however denying the validity
of these reasons based soly on the statement, 'they can't be proved by my
(scientific) methods' is takeing the easy way out. Just like 'beliving' 
becauseother people (whoever they are) do.

don ward

p.s. I will be gone next week, so I won't be seeing anything posted for the
next 5 days or so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you want me to be able to read you post, then you have to set the
distrubution to world. I am in Germany. Thats why I have trouble with
my spelling. please excuse.
Don Ward at: zdv620@support.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 23 Jul 1992 04:42:45 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
>>I read somewhere about the "Anchor Bible" and I haven't seen
>>it mentioned in this thread; it was recommended as ~the~ 
>>reference work for scholars. As I will be attending seminary
>>in the fall, I suppose I could wait, but I wanted to know if
>>any of you had heard of it, and how large it was. . .

> ... The complete
>set of published volumes will probably set you back about a thousand
>dollars.  If you want to start collecting them, Christian Book
>Distributors has them all at discount prices.

Doubleday (the publisher of the Anchor Bible) used to have a deal where you
could "subscribe" to the AB: i.e. one volume per month at about 20% off.
 
I don't know if they still do this, but I think they do.  This is how I got
my set during the mid-80's.  Near the end they went through some troubled
times when they changed over to a distibutor in Tennessee --several months
between volumes, that sort of thing.  I finally punted and bought the last
half-dozen volumes from at a CBD warehouse sale.  I believe they got all
that sorted out.

I used to have a flyer from them at home.  If anyone's interested I'll see
if I can dig it out.

>It's enormous.  [...]  The project has been going on
>since the 1960's, and about 50 volumes out of a projected 70+ have been
>issued. [...]

It's probably more accurate to think of the AB as a reference set than as a
"study Bible" per se.  These are detailed scholarly/critical translations
of each book of the Bible (i.e. detailed verse-by-verse and often word-by-
word translations and commentary are the norm).

> ... It's also incomplete.  [e.g. most of the Pentateuch is not finished]

However, the NT is much more complete than the OT: i.e. the "major" books
are there, however a few of the epistles are still not finished.

Some advice: Unless you really have ~$1000 to plop down right now, you may
want to be selective.  Some of the volumes (e.g. R. Brown's two volumes on
"John", Joseph Fitzmyer's two volumes on "Luke" and Speiser's "Genesis")
are pretty much de facto standards in their respective areas and you'll
probably want to get them (they'll almost surely be used in your classes).

However, while almost all of the volumes are at least "good", many of them
are probably going to be less useful to you right now.  In any case, there
are probably other sets and individual reference books that would be more
useful than a complete set of the AB.  E.g. the Interpreters Dictionary of
the Bible to name one.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --     "...and they opened their thesaurus and offered 
                            him gold and frankincense and myrrh..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul17.155135.14502@cs.joensuu.fi> 
	<l6eb0hINNlt4@news.bbn.com> 
	<1992Jul21.203138.8488@portland.mdc.unisys.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 05:28:04 GMT

tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Just to supplement my previous comments on the harlot being Jerusalem, much
>of the early persecution of Christians came at the hands of Jews, not the
>Romans.  The accounts of this persecution are found throughout the book of
>Acts, as well as some references in Hebrews (10:32).  There is specific
>reference to the Jewish persecution elsewhere in Revelation (cf. 2:9; 3:9).

Irrelevant and immaterial, even if true.  Revelation 17 is talking
about a specific city, not a group of people.  There is, however, some
indication that the beast that the woman is sitting on, in addition to
representing the city of Rome, also symbolizes the Emperor Nero, who
is well-known for having persecuted the Christians after the great
fire in A.D. 64.  Verse 17:11 "As for the beast that was and is not,
it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to
perdition."  The seven are the seven kings of verse 10.  Nero was the
sixth Emperor of Rome, and it was widely rumored after his death that
he hadn't really died, but would some day return.  When he returned he
would be the "eighth", but he would still be "one of the seven."

(The whole passage is somewhat confused, because of the multiple
meanings.  The beast has seven heads, but it is also one of the heads.
The seven are seven mountains, but they are also seven kings.)


Keith
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The "Get a Clue" Discussion
Date: 28 Jul 1992 23:33:23 GMT
Organization: PC-Police!
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

Jack Carroll writes:

      I share Mr. Gross's deep concern over the rise of tyranny and the
      suppression of free speech.  It is clear that the primary threat to
      the basic freedoms of this country comes from the Religious Right
      which is actively seeking to destroy the foundation of liberty in
      the United States.  It is only by opposing the arrogant presentation
      of sectarian beliefs and positions as "The Truth" and keeping discussion
      open to men of all religious beliefs and none that freedom will prevail.
             ^^^^^

A position I admire also, Mr. Carroll. And while the patriotic music
dies in the dawn's early light and you are still on the podium, I would
merely ask that you incluce *all* people, not just men, in your
eloquence.

Dano
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul24.022711.12904@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
	<LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

   Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
   no longer believes that Jehovah exists.

If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

   >>> Please do!!!!  I keep an open mind just as long as what is being said
   >>> agrees with the bible.

   >> Now there's a nice contradiction in terms!

   > ...and where is the contradiction?  I accept the bible as Jehovah's word,
   > far superior to that of mans. If man disagrees with the bible, he is wrong!

   Trouble is that in accepting The Bible as "Jehovah's word", *you* had to
   make the judgement that it *is* indeed Jehovah's word. You trusted human
   reason (i.e. your own) at that point.

This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
respect to the bible and JW organization.  Everything made sense and was clear.
There were no confusion involved.  The fact that everythings around us had a
creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even bigger things
(e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

   To reject human reason thereafter ("If man disagrees with the bible, he
   is wrong!") is inconsistent, since you have based your acceptance of The
   Bible on your own human reason.

Inconsistent? No!  Would it be inconsistent to trust the theoretical findings of
physicists, engineers, chemists, etc., after their theories have been proved?

   This applies equally well even if you were to claim direct experience of
   God telling you that _The Bible_ is true, such as visions or whatever it
   might be: *you* decide that these are genuine and not hallucinations.

God does not intervene directly in mans affairs; he does so only through the bible!

Regards,
Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:05:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sbuckley.712259994@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Lawrence C. Foard writes:
>  christians are christians because they acknowledge the new testament,
>the new covenant in jesus as updating/fulfilling/replacing the laws in
>the old testament/covenant.  

  And I always thought all a person needed to do to be a Christian 
was that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

>  that would be to disregard the context of the bible.  sex within marriage
>is sanctioned [so celibacy is not required].  and the new covenant through
>jesus replaces the laws that would have bound me to the old covenant if it
>if the new one didn't come along.

  To me, there is much to be said that the way to God is through the Son.
So to me, what that means is that God is not know through laws, but though
spiritually becoming One with Jesus Christ. 

  The difference between the two approaches, I feel, is as great as are
the differences between night and day. 

  The focus of upholding laws does not touch the soul in the same way
as does the focus of the inner eye of Love. Which is the only way that
Jesus, and thus God, may be attuned to. The focus of upholding laws
is more ego centered. Ego centered focuses have a very hard time touching
the soul. They touch emotions very nicely though. They also have a way of
creating separation. Which, BTW, is one of the definitions that I have
heard for "sin". 



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Free gifts? NOT!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:16:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.145850.18288@csrd.uiuc.edu> skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>
>>    PS. If I had to guess I would bet that Gregg will once again try to 
>>    find a way to twist his words so that they don't actually mean what 
>>    obviously do.
>
>I won't do you the favor, Mr. Butler.  I've received plenty of email
>from other posters now explaining to me that you seem to enjoy this
>sort of verbal sparring more than actually discussing anything.
>As I've told you, I'm here to learn and to share, not to argue.
>Yesterday I received and accepted an offer from you to cool down
>the tone of your postings.  I await fulfillment of that offer.

Mr Skinner, in my opinion, Dave Butler is *the* most logical and coolheaded
individual posting to this group.  I know it hurts to be demolished by his
deft reason, but it is you who puts yourself into such awkward positions to
start with.  Perhaps it is time that you tried to reason out a consistent
position for yourself so that you wouldn't be subjected to the embarassments
that you've been receiving daily since you arrived on the net?  Your
transparent game of crying misrepresention when cornered is wearing very
thin.  In addition, it allows to blame your misfortune on somebody else,
and thus you never see the need to learn from your mistakes.  There is
a need, Mr. Skinner.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Keith Rice)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Organization: University of North Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:54:49 GMT

In <1992Jul13.165831.12438@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>I would like to aquire an accurate translation of the bible and
>would like the net's opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of the 
>different versions available.  Although the RSV is highly regarded, 
>the NRSV claims to be an improvement on it.  For this reason,
>I though I should delay my decision until I have better information.  
>Specific references to editions with good footnotes would be appreciated.
>Since some editions have inspirational notes included, I must note that 
>this is of less interest to me than historical explanations of phrases 
>and cross-references to related passages.  Thanks in advance.

I highly recommend the NIV. I recently began reading the NIV after using
the KJV for almost my entire life. The terminology is more understandable
and doesn't have the problems that the KJV does (IMO). A friend of my
wife's said that the KJV was poetically brilliant at the risk of being
inaccurate.

As for footnotes and study helps, check out the NIV Thompson Chain Reference
Bible. It has tons of notes!
--
***************************************************************************
* D. Keith Rice -- University of North Texas -- drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu *
***************************************************************************
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The LDs and the Space Potato (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:41:52 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc.


> In article <1992Jul30.130842.57671@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu writes:
> > ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:
> > [...]
> >> The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
> >> than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
> >> being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
> >> Carolinas.
> >
> > Oh no, here we go again.
> >
> > Couldn't you used Aesops fables, Norse, Greek, or Mayan mythology
> > instead of trying to indirectly slam the LDS?
> >
> > I've never heard the one about Nolaunching the Ark from the
> > Carolinas before, but Garden of Eden, Missouri, USA I have.
> >
>
> 	I believe it comes from the book _The God Makers_.  I have no idea
> where they got this reference, since it has never been taught in the LDS
> church.

I know how difficult it is for the LDs to accept the truth concerning
Joseph and the origins of Mormonism.  The facts are -- that Joseph
had a few Space Potatos of his own.

Oliver B. Huntington, in the Mormon publication _Juvenile Instructer_
November 15, 1895, pp. 700-701:

  'Adams's Altar, ... I have visited many times. ... Joseph said, "That
  altar was built by our Father Adam and there he offered sacrifice."
  ... according to the words of the Prophet Joseph, mankind in that
  age continued to emigrate eastwardly until they reached the country
  on or near the Atlantic coast; and that in or near Carolina Noah
  built his remarkable ship, in which he, his family, and all kinds
  of animals lived a few days over one year without coming out of it.'
_Cf. Mormon Doctrine, p.21_

> Take care,
>
> -Mark
Mark
<my opinions are my own>
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke 14:26 was (Dan Quayle)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:19:29 GMT
Organization: SPS

>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>Now you got me confused. So let's see if I got this right. Jesus says if
>you want to be a follower of Him, the cost (of that "free gift") is you must 
>HATE your family and even yourself. Is that correct? Now assuming that to
>be correct, you are saying that that only refers to if you want to be a
>follower of Jesus. You are saying that doesn't apply if you want to raise
>a family? But how can you raise a family free of HATE and still be a follower
>of Jesus at the same time? Is that not possible? Are you saying that no one
>should be a follower of Jesus because he preached HATE but we should follow
>what he says elsewhere on the family as long as it doesn't involve HATE? Are
>you saying that if you want to follow Jesus, you must be schizophrenic? If
>someone asks you if you are a follower you say, "Yes I HATE all, even my
>mother, even myself", but if someone asks about your family you say, "Yes, I
>have a beautiful loving family that is nothing but LOVE"? Can you please
>explain the idea of context you see? Are you a follower of Jesus? Do you
>follow all of His rules? Did Jesus preach a "mixed message"? Was His
>message different for married men than for single men? Are you accusing Jesus
>of being a fisher of men, a free gift peddler, a grifter?


Sorry Paul, now you have me confused.
I will attempt to bring this back to the central issue, as I understand it.

You claimed that in Luke 14:26 Jesus is preaching hatred of family.  I disagreed.
The basis of my disagreement is the context of the passage. The whole discussion
(vs.25-35) is Jesus teaching about the cost involved in committing yourself to 
following him. He uses a few illustrations, one of which is v26. 

The central message of his talk (vs.25-35) is: if you wish to be a follower of Jesus,
you must first consider the cost. He demands first priority in your life. Viewed 
from this context, v26 simply teaches that for a follower of Jesus, family must
be a secondary priority, that devotion to family cannot outweigh devotion to him.
That is why I disagree with the claim that Jesus is preaching hatred.

Again let me say. It can be misleading to quote someone speaking on "Topic A" 
and using that quote to determine his position on "Topic B".  The "Topic A" of 
this passage is the cost of discipleship.  

Regards,

Dave Weaver
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW and blood
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:26:28 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <1992Jul24.121150.6453@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  That isn't much of a reference.  I don't even know who Denton Cooley is,
much
>>less where he might have said it, in what context, etc.
> 
> 	One of the leading surgeons in America. 

  Now I know who he is, but when did he say it?  Under what context?  Why does
he represent "many doctors"?  What were his exact words?

  All these are needed before even testing the hypothesis that most doctors
prefer bloodless surgery.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:12:36 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul24.021230.12499@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.171952.6592@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

>>>-Tim:
>>> I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of out-of-
>>> context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs,
>>> errors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
>>> to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious detail if
>>> you wish.) 

>>-Mark:
>> Well, I'll tell you what; I agree to go through them with you, but
>> ONLY one at a time, with the preference of doing so privately and as
>> time and resources permit.  If you dump them all at me at once like you
>> did to the people who came to your door, forget it.

>-Tim:
> How about we do it, one point at a time, on talk.origins, then we should
> get a lot of useful feedback by experts in the appropriate fields. Good idea?

Yes. Please. I, among others no doubt, would rather this happened on the net
than in e-mail. Corey has recently posted a few comments on the JW book on
talk.origins, but I'd like to see a more thorough and systematic treatment,
"in long and glorious detail" if you've got the inclination, Tim.

> Tim O'Neill 

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK