HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:45:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In <1992Sep2.161859.2691@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com 
(Jeff Achenbach) writes:
|In <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
|>I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
|>see joy and freedom rather than fear.  
|>
|>What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  
|
|For the more intelligent members, yes. For the rest of you.... listen to 
|your own prayers and hyms. Notice how many references there are to you 
|being "as little children" and "sheep". Do you really think these are 
|admirable qualities? Oh, I'm sorry, answering this may require some simple
|form of rational thought. Forget it.

How about the Sermon on the Mount references to 'the meek', 'poor in spirit', 
'those who mourn', etc. - are these qualities modern day wisdom seekers admire?

What about the future where in heaven there will be streets like gold?

The example gave before his trial and death was that the least
or the servant of all would be the greatest.  

Maybe, the real deal is that God has a different standard of what is good?
I think you will find that to be the case.

Yes, we are like little children and sheep, but we have the Eternal Father
and the True Shepherd on our team.  You can have Him, too.

|In fact, why
|>do you think we are believers in the first place?
|
|Sheer stupidity.

Not a new claim, for Paul told us that the message we preach (the cross
of Jesus Christ) is foolishness to to those who seek wisdom, but to we
who believe it is the power of God (I Cor 1).

We believe becuase we have heard what God did on our part and that without
any merit on our part.  For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

|Jeff Achenbach
|achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:32:02 GMT

Stephen James writes:

> I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
>god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
>go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
>people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
>creatures.

  well, perhaps if you gave me a reason why you want me to be quiet
and leave, i'd consider it.  until then, i can't take you seriously.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 4 Sep 92 08:03:33 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep3.194157.2592@u.washington.edu>
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>The thought that life on earth is merely a try-out for an eternal
>afterlife, with the Big Guy acting as a tyrannical scorekeeper,
>fills me with despair.  Why have concern for other humans
>under this circumstance?

That is a sad thought, indeed.  But I've always thought of life on
Earth as a learning ground and not a testing ground.  Although there
may be tests during my life, the real purpose of this life is to learn
to love God and my fellow man (Matt 22:37-40).  The tests show me how
I am doing (if I pay any attention).  I can overcome challenges and
tests during my life, and although I may fail some, I can learn from
them and improve myself.

>Actually, because I devise my own morality, and will defend my
>choices if anyone is interested, I think that I am a paragon
>of personal accountability.  Several times have I heard 
>christians excuse the bad effects of their actions because
>they were just doing god's will.  Not to mention those
>christians who feel that morality is secondary to faith.

The central theme of Christ's message is that God holds everyone
accountable for their choices and the effects of these choices on
other people.  Christ provided the way for us to be redeemed of the
cost against our salvation that our wrong choices bring IF we repent.
But, Christ's gift of forgiveness does not releave us our
responsibility to do everything we can to repair any damage we have
done to ourselves or others because of our wrong choices.

Mark
-- 
   When I examined myself and my methods of thought I came to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my
talent for absorbing positive knowledge.
   -- Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:00:01 GMT

Douglas Graham writes:

>John Emery writes:

>>What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  In fact, why
>>do you think we are believers in the first place?

>You are believers because you succumbed to scare tactics and other
>psychological manipulation, possibly as a child.  You try to gain members
>because that's what the virus which has destroyed your brain tells you to
>do.  In words: "Go and make believers of all the nations."  The virus has
>rendered you incapable of stopping to consider that by spreading it, you
>may be doing far, far more harm than good.

  well i don't suppose you'd say this unless you have been harmed by
those trying to spread this "virus" into you.  i can consider your opinion
with more weight if you give an example of how christians hurt or have
hurt you.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:11:34 GMT

(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>Stephen James writes to Stephen Buckley:
>>please do not continue this preaching here. 
>PREACH: 1. to deliver a sermon 2. to explain in a tiresome way 3. to
>use arguments to which an alt.atheist can find no counter-arguments.


What happened to my kill file??
You're in it but you still manage to somehow inflict your inanities upon
an unwilling and slightly irritated populace.



>Best wishes,
>             Jarek

			Oh, just go away, Jarek.
			And don't say 'Best wishes' unless the content of 
			your posting is consonant with it.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:03:33 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>(Steve Adams) writes:

>    Similarly, the story of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 2:4ff shows us
>    that even given only one rule, man is not able to keep it.  ...


>Of course there is another perspective to the Garden of Eden
>story: Imagine that you are a very intelligent and very powerful
>father of two small children.

>Now put your children in a room filled with all kinds
>of wrapped toys. In the very middle of the room, with
>the biggest box and wrapping there is a present.

>You tell your two children that they can unwrap and
>play with any toy in the room EXCEPT that one.

>Then you leave the room.

>Why should what happens be of any surprise? 

But they didn't 'eat the fruit' until they were tempted by the serpent.
Until the outside force acted upon them, the blissfully ignored the 'tree'.
Adam and Eve were in perfect unison with God until this point.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 05:29:32 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep02.224224.14046@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <pkkn#pp.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	OK, I'll correct you: you're wrong. Not only is "arable land"
>>another variable, the yield from land is variable, and even the _need_
>>for land to grow food is pragmatic rather than theoretical. There is no
>>theoretical limit to how much food the world can produce, only practical
>>limits, which vary with time.
>
>I think that until you can come up with a practical suggestion for
>increasing food production, I'll just dismiss this as so much hot air.

	What a coincidence. When you come up with a practical suggestion
for reducing population, let me know.

	BTW, food production in the US has been increasing ever since
the country was founded.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:01:59 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <dabrowsk.714864834@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>As by atheism. Intellectual evolution always slows down when barriers of 
>dogmatism are set in wrong places. Religion AND atheism can stimulate or
>hinder thinking; actually, the original reason why I decided to believe
>in God was that this option gave me more intellectual freedom.

I'm sure you'll get lots of responses questioning that believing in God gives
you intellectual freedom (it appears, for instance, that many people who
believe in God lack the intellectual freedom to consider that prayer doesn't
work).  But even if it does, so what?  How could you decide to believe
something based on some grounds other than whether it's true or false?  (For
that matter, how can one decide to believe something at all?)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:19:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.181550.2961@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151857.29955@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch) writes:
>>
>>I think you're missing the point on overpopulation. People have more kids
>>because infant mortality is high.
>
>And the infant mortality rate is high because there are too many people.
>
>>This month's "New Internationalist" does a good
>>examination of this very topic. Birth control is a convenient cover to
>>hide behind - people should have access to it, but it's not the prime
>>issue.
>
>This is pernicious nonsense.

Several studies have shown that vaccination and other child health programs
are more effective in reducing the birth rate than simply giving birth
control information and devices.  When parents are assured that the kids
they have are likely to reach adulthood, they choose to have fewer kids--
otherwise, they may have to give birth to 10 babies in order to ensure
one or two offspring to take care of them in their old age.


-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | It's hard to seize the
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | day when you must first
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | grapple with the morning.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
Organization: Jah Guides [We get you through the valley!]
	<fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig> 
	<BtLv2F.Cp7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714863644@spssig>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:44:01 GMT

In article <adams.714863644@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>As for Pi, the exact value is defined as (circumf)/(diameter).  Given
>enough time, and enough compute power, you could print digits of Pi until
>the end of the universe.  No different than your God telling you the
>number.

Oh, it's a bit more complicated than that. But you do agree that knowing the
real value of Pi is a sign of power and allmightyness? Perhaps even
transcendent of time?

>>Ah, but once created, She would then lift it, thus creating a miracle. 

>But then she has violated the test.  The test was to create something so
>big she could not lift it.  She couldn't do it!  By lifint the boulder, she
>failed!

Nope, that's why it was a miracle that She could lift something that She
created that She could not lift. You do agree that being able to lift
something that you can't lift is miraculous? Of course, you can then be the
Devil's advocate and say, "all right, create something so heavy that even a
miracle couldn't lift it". And She would of course. Then you would say, "OK
now not even a miracle can allow you to lift this thing!" And She would say,
well yes, this is true, my foolish little man. And then she would take a
deep breath, smile, and She would create a miracle so great that it would
create a miracle that could lift the thing that was so heavy that no miracle
could lift it. And that would be a true miracle, wouldn't it? And you would
say, "But, but, but, but, that's cheating, that's not fair, that's making a
circle out of a square, that's circular, that's cycles upon cycles, I want my 
mommy!" And She, She who is the creator would say, "I am your mommy, I am 
dharma, and dharma is right livelyhood or do the right thing, it is for dharma
that I created you" Shall we continue or will that be enough for now?  Now do 
you see what it is to BE THE CREATOR? The creator of all, transcendent of all 
limitation. Look it up in the dictionary. Now that you've seen the light, stand
up for your right!

>>Very powerful and allmighty, as a matter of fact, transcendent. 

>Not.

Look up the word transcendent. Transcendent of power and might.

>>So how do you cope
>>with a God who is not allmighty and only knows Pi to one digit? 

>I don't believe in plenary verbal inspiration.  Blame the author of the
>document who chose to use aproximate values or didn't measure properly.  He
>did get darn close, considering.

Well, kind of close, I suppose. Bit of a rush job if you ask me. Try it for 
yourself, it's not like it takes the brain of Einstein or anything. Not exactly
what I would call devine inspiration. Certainly not a carpenter.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:59:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <l9no1sINNst8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) wrote:
> In article <ksand-200892122116@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
> 
> >I would like to know if this is really the case -- do JWs believe
> >that there was never any rain on Earth before the Flood? This is 
> >getting more and more crazy... This issue opens a huge new can
> >of worms, all crawling all over the JW logic.
> 
> This is religion we are talking here; what made you think that logic
> has anything to do with it?

You are right, I shouldn't call the mental gymnastics JWs execute
with their flood theories as logical thinking. Anyway, my point
is that if JWs really believe that Earth never received rain before
the Flood, they are dealing with even more hoopla than I expected.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen)
Subject: Re: Satanic Crime units?? Re: WoD: Frontline Report
Organization: ProgramVareVerkstedet - UNIT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:35:18 GMT

In article <3458@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>#	I'm pro-God, and I don't think you should be allowed to discuss
>>#the merits or even the alternative of satan-loving on a network that is
>>#partially government-funded.
>
>If I remember right, didn't god create satan? So, what's the difference?
>
>Mike

Sort of...

- There is a passage in OT that has been interpreted to death: The one on
the fall of Lucifer, Bringer of Light. The old interpretation said that
this was an angel that opposed YHWH (sorry, I don't use a Hebrew font) and
was expelled, then took up the glove as a punisher kind of guy, some say
he is Satan. Modern interpretations say that the passage is about a mortal
king who was overthrown.
- What people fail to see is that the Judeo-Xtian religions (Judaism and
Christianity) are polytheistic, with one god (YHWH) "more worshipped" than
the others. Islam took this to the extreme, by defining rigorously that
you have only the straight opposites, YHWH and Satan (which is Hebrew for
"the accuser" or "the opponent" or somesuch according to my sources), and
that YHWH is by definition by the priesthood the "Good Guy". YHWH as the
"good" god also dominates the two other faiths. Xtianity uses the Trinity
(three facets of supposedly the same god in modern interpretations, three
different entities in old Xtian mythology).
- As for "Satanic rituals": Several of the Xtian symbols etc. are taken
from "heathen" practices, and directly stolen: The assignment of Jesus'
birthday to Yule-tide, Easter rabbits, Xmas trees, the cross etc.

I am a scientific atheist with a (sort of) professional interest in
mythologies, and all this is, by implication, IMHO.

Newsgroups: field set to talk.religion.misc instead of alt.drugs

- Tor Wilhelmsen
-- 
"I'm a Derek, and Dereks don't run!" - Derek in 'Bad Taste'
toriver@pvv.unit.no
Standard disclaimer should apply to this, I guess...
"Reality is a poor escapism for people who cannot handle roleplaying" - Me
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:15:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <lharris.2@upei.ca>, lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) wrote:
>      Here you are right - mostly.  Evil was not an unavoidable aspect of 
> creation. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, as 
> long as that universe does not include free will.  I agree with Steve;\'s 
> comment that God cannot create another God, but He can create beings perfect 
> in what they are.

In other words the omnipotent God is *not* capable of creating a universe
with no sinning and free will. When will Christians stop creating
logical traps for themselves?

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:31:40 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 > (Kent Sandvik) writes to Stephen Buckley:
 > 
 >  I have faith in that
 >  most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
 >  truth would create a *universal* religion.
 >  
   I replied:

   Hmmm. If we say that simple mathematics is universally true
   then were is our universal religion?

(Kent Sandvik) writes:
 Even looking at complex mathematics that nearly all mathematicians
 world view agree upon as universal rules, where's the universal
 religion?
 
Precisely my point. 

Dano
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15203 alt.atheism:16187
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:48:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>Jean Piaget, a foremost psychologist and learning theorist,
>described learning as "disequilibrium," a state of mind created
>by the influx of new information that conflicts with our existing
>"schemata" or mental pictures.  Our reaction to the new data
>determines whether we learn or not.

and proceeds to assert that people who believe in religion are
dominated by this, which atheists are not.  This effect (which is
related to "cognitive dissonance") is well known, and affects
everyone.  You can see it operating in all areas: religion, politics,
even science.  It is folly to claim that you are exempt.  Fortunately
for all of us, people do manage to change their opinions due to
evidence.  Sometimes they have to be hit over the head a few times by
the evidence, and of course people do vary.  But I'm sure we can find
this sort of thing happening among atheists as well as those who
believe in religions.  Those who are convinced it doesn't happen
to them are likely to be most at risk.
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:16:45 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <BtMGBs.Iss@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu  
(Robert Weiss) writes:
> In article <l9nl03INNg6p@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
Abd-Allah) writes...
> 
> >I'm glad you posted: it gives me an opportunity to really start a good 
> >discussion now.  First: who wrote the translation you used?
> 
> 	I didn't use one translation. I have the Yusif Ali, the M. 
> Shakir and the N. Dawood translations. But I like to paraphrase, since 
> whenever I have quoted the Q. in a debate with a Muslim, I have been  
told 
> that I have been using the wrong translation. That seems to be the 
> first step. So when I ask which translation to use I received 
> different answers. Most tell me that the translations are wrong just 
> by the fact that they are translations. I need to learn arabic they
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> tell me.
  ^^^^^^^

     Isn't that annoying as all hell? Arguing from awe is such a clever  
way to avoid debate. 

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.cheml.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer

"Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" -- the Trisagon
> =============================
> Robert Weiss
> psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:07:42 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Does it explain why illogical statements are funny? If so, why are 
>you then using illogical statements, making people laugh instead
>of believing. It reminds me of a saying that it's far worse to
>be laughted at, instead of hated or loved. Dan Quayle is also
>suffering from this.

	OK, tell me what illogical statements I've recently done ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc