HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:58:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: talk
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug19.937.32499@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
>
>1. I don't mean to "argue from authority."  I think that's wrong, and I
>should correct that impression.  I meant to respond to people who wrote:
>
>   >They have their rank & file too cowed to check references.
>
>   >The only failing the average JW has is that he lets fear of men and
>   >laziness prevent him from thinking critically about his own religion.
>
>...etc.  I am an average JW, and I felt addressed by that.  I don't feel
>those statements are true of me or of any of the Witnesses I know.  I
>wanted to show we aren't just stupid deluded people, but I didn't mean to
>"argue from authority."
>
>

You may not refrain from thinking critically about your religion, but
that's not true of 99% of JWs I've ever talked to.  If you are right,
then why have no JWs responded to examples of intellectual dishonesty
posted here over the last few weeks, including my own?

Here is an example to let you put your money where your mouth is:

Like many other "end times" proclaimers, the Watchtower Society claims
that one part of the composite "sign of the last days" is the
prevalence of "pestilence". In doing so it uses arguments that grasp
at straws.

The use of any word depends, of course, on its generally accepted
meaning.  In English, "pestilence" implies a rapidly spreading
epidemic disease such as smallpox or bubonic plague.  The Greek word
"loimos" translated in Luke 21:11 as "pestilence" means a "deadly
*infectious* malady" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

The WTBTS Bible dictionary _Insight on the Scriptures_, Vol. 1, p. 617,
gives the definition of "pestilence" as: "Any rapidly spreading
*infectious* disease capable of attaining epidemic proportions and
of causing death."

The WTBTS quotes the Bible, " `There will be.... pestilences.'
(Luke 21:11)...." and then claims that "there are other pestilences
that modern medicine has also been unable to control, such as
cancer and coronary artery disease." (_The Watchtower_, 10/1/88 p. 5)

Obviously, cancer and coronary disease are not pestilences, even
according to the WTBTS's own dictionary, so they mislead people by
claiming that they are.  The argument grasps at straws because the
writers are reduced to claiming that diseases that used to be those
of old age are "pestilences".  The main reason cancer and heart
disease are prevalent today is that the advances of medicine since
the end of the nineteenth century have reduced "pestilences" so
greatly that many more people live to be old enough to die from the
age related diseases rather than pestilences.


I've posed this problem of how the WTBTS misleads its readers to
several JWs, whose only response has been "I'll get back to you".
This is how they refuse to think critically.

Care to prove me wrong?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14213 talk.origins:9700
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:59:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <davem.30.713816527@county.lmt.mn.org> davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller) writes:
<In article <1992Aug12.205825.16152@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
<
<>In article <2447@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
<>    Interesting.  Let's see -- how long can an earthworm survive 
<>under water? -- why don't you show us how most invertebrates, including
<>earthworms, could survive the Flood? 
< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<
<The reason I wanted to jump in here was to say: save your bandwidth.  The 
<JWs love to argue, but the only references they believe are published by the 
<Watchtower Society.  Anything else is 'worldly', and probably from satan.  I 
<know, I used to be in the same boat.

Since my message was in this thread, and since DaveMac seems to be under
the impression that I am a JW, allow me to clear up the misconception and
state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a JW.  There are many orthodox
Christian who happen to (still) believe in the universal flood as described
in Genesis.  I happen to be one of them.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Aug8.103349.9155@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Aug13.024506.3324@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
	<2451@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 01:50:16 GMT

tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Allow me to reiterate my earlier observation.  The city of Rome (or the
>Roman church) could not be the harlot of Revelation because the city of
>Rome was NEVER the wife of God.  Only Jerusalem, the city of God, and
>Israel, the wife of God, could possibly be viewed as a spiritual harlot
>from God perspective.

Hm.  Have my previous articles in this thread been getting out?

I've provided a number of very solid reasons why the harlot of
Revelation 17 must be the city of Rome and not Jerusalem.  If Mr.
Albrecht is not convinced I'm sorry, but I wish he'd respond to the
arguments rather than simply reiterating his position.  I don't want
to repost old material, but if anyone didn't see it and wants to know
why the harlot in Revelation is the city of Rome, I'll be happy to
email a copy.  I'm quite confident that almost everyone *except* Mr.
Albrecht will be persuaded.

Just in passing:  the fact that the prophet Ezekiel uses the word
harlot to refer to Jerusalem does not imply that the use of the word in
Revelation must refer to the same city.  A harlot does not have to be
an unfaithful wife.  The Greek word 'pornes' used in Revelation means
"a woman who sells her body for sexual uses," or a "woman engaging in
unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust"  (Thayer's
Greek Lexicon).  There's no implication that she must be a married
woman.

>Other than a geographic similarity, what specific facts lead you to
>believe that papal Rome is the "heir" of pagan Rome?
....
>Rome the city as the harlot is pure speculation.  Rome the church as harlot
>is impossible because the Roman Catholic church didn't exist at the time
>the book was written, and therefore it wasn't persecuting 1st century
>Christians.

Yes, I've made pretty much the same points about the harlot not being
the Catholic Church, in somewhat more detail.  There's no harm in
making them again, of course.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:35:14 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>Laura Falk writes:
>: 
>: The bible says that Satan is the God of this system of things.  It also says
>: that God will intervene at his time and establish his Kingdom on earth as it is
>: in heaven.  Now, if Satan is the God of this system of things and God will
>: establish his kingdom at his given time, what does that say about his
>: intervention with man's affairs today?

>How do Christians justify their claim that theirs is a monotheistic
>religion?  It seems to me that not just God but Satan et al qualify 
>for the distinction of being gods in every normal sense.  I realize 
>that Christians only worship the one called God, but that doesn't mean 
>that the others don't qualify for the distinction as well.  Is it 
>that the claim of monotheism is just a rationalization to discredit 
>and differentiate themselves from the pagans?

  if you wanna define "gods in every normal sense" as spiritual entities
with more power than humans then i suppose there are billions of gods.  but
all gods [according to the bible] were created equal [as it were].  one
god claims to be the one true creator god above all the rest.  and as i 
christian, i do not worship the one true god to rationalize out of relevance
all those other spiritual entities with power.  on the contrary, my 
experience with spritual powers other than god in part led me to the
one true god...so it behooves me none to pretend that pagans are wrong
and there aren't spiritual powers out there, because i KNOW there are, it's
just that i choose not to have anything to do with all the lesser "gods".


---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:43:02 GMT

Scott Aaron writes

>                           I asked Jesus,
>                     "How much do you love me?"
          "You're kinda insecure, aren't you?", He answered;
                     and He stretched out His arm
                          and hailed a cab.


:-)


--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:12:19 GMT

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
: In article <1992Aug14.125146.6956@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
: > 
: >  
: >  Have you ever had an experience you choose to describe as "religious?" If so,
: > how did you decide to classify it as such? For example, if you had an intense
: > conversion experience, what led you to conclude that it was supernatural in 
: > origin, rather than regarding it as a hallucination, aberration in conscious-
: > ness, etc.?
: > 
: In my case(a coversion experience in the person of Jesus, circa, 1975)
: not only resulted in a supernatural change of attitude and thinking
: which i know i had no control over previously, but external circumstances
: were altered too, i.e., a steady flow of externally applied bad luck
: from unknown sources was closed off completely, something which was
: noted quite fantastically by me and others who knew me. I did not find
: myself in the bask of good luck or supernatural good fortune, but a
: complete cessation of the bad. I'm sure many of us know people whom
: appear to have the opposite of the midas touch:-)

This is a fairly common course taken when Christians witness to others.
Things were terrible until I found Christ, etc.  I find this to be a
thoroughly uncompelling.  It sounds like they are saying that God is
intentionally placing snags in that person's life to guide them in the
right direction and realize God's presence.  Does he provide a 
similar service for Hindus and Buddists?  Are we lab mice who God
delivers electric shocks to until he provokes the desired response?
What about those of us who aren't so unlucky?  I haven't experienced
dispair to a sufficient degree to cause me to accept the presence of
the Christian God without sufficient evidence.  Of course, tomorrow
God could invoke the trials of Job on my life, but what if he doesn't?
Would you argue that God gives everyone equal chances to find him?
If he doesn't, whould you still call him 'just'?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:11:27 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


Kent says in article <1992Aug8.190850.12617@gallant.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Hacker):

>Note also that if God deliberately placed out all the clues to
>evolution, he's one of the best jokers ever, and making life hard
>for creationists.

But who says that God did not direct evolution (perhaps starting with
a very controlled big bang).

Good-day!

Mark
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a
criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
-- Werner Heisenberg
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug11.150704.5211@tss.com> <64LM03pw59ca00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
	<1992Aug14.160017.10786@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <BszL66.L7s@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:03:26 GMT

By the way, the trinity originally comes from the triple Goddess  __ which comes
from the three aspects of the female human or the fertile delta or\/ . This 
explains why the Christians have such a tough time figuring out the trinity. 
After all, Christianity is not about the Goddess, about Her-story, or is it? 
Is fear of the trinity misogyny?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug16.231225.16231@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:38:58 GMT

In article <1246@esl.ESL.COM> 
markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
really discuss points in the Bible.

In article <Bsxpw5.911@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
And that modern day prophet is ... [drumroll please] ... YOU! Only you can
interpret the written word for yourself, only your beliefs are valid for
yourself. This is what it means to be an individual. This is what it means
to be free. Now, walk that freedom walk and talk that freedom talk. Realize
the prophet and profit in you. The walls must come down, the era of strong
central government and strong central church is over. Welcome the era of the
free, self-thinking, individual. You are number 1, the king is no more!
Be seeing you!

In article <1992Aug16.231225.16231@sdf.lonestar.org> 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
I think this whole "prophet" thing is absurd.  Suppose we have some
lunatic who claims to be a prophet...and i'm sure there is no shortage
of them...how do we know if he's crazy or if he's actually receiving
TRUE visions from GOD?!?!

----
Well, how do YOU know? It's pretty straightforward, isn't it? Who can be
the judge of what YOU find to be revelation or absurdity? YOU do know
the answer, don't YOU? Why, it is none other than ... YOU! Why do YOU
act surprised? The creator delivered you FROM slavery, why do you cling
to the broken shackles? Surely you don't expect someone to show you the
way to freedom, do you? You are already FREE! What holds you back?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:31:53 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>:   judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
>: for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
>: accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
>: don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
>: it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
>: accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
>: or not.

>You say that what happens to unbelievers is moot.  What if your God
>condemns them to hell where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
>Is hell preferable to being tortured?  Should a woman rather be raped
>than go to hell?  Is hell worse than being skinned alive?  Would you
>worship a sadistic god who would send an unbeliever to hell as long
>as he treated you special?  Would you play god a lulliby to drown
>out the screams of those being gassed?

  pretty disturbing questions you raise.  i did not say what happens to
unbelievers is moot.  i said that those who haven't heard of jesus will
not be judged like those who have.  if i have heard of jesus' offer and
reject it, i have no reason to think i will be judged by the 2-week
old baby dying somewhere of starvation.  and i cannot have my personal
relationship with god dependent on somebody else's experience.  it is
a personal issue based on what i know of jesus' offer.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Confused Calvinism (was: To Kent,)
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:06:03 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Steve Gross seems to be either equivocating or confused.  At first he has
stated the very Calvinist concept that we cannot choose salvation and that
his god saves whom he sees fit:

> There is no "path" to salvation, as some say there is a "path" to
> enlightenment.  God either gives a person the salvation, or he doesn't.  
> There is nothing you or I can do to attain it.  Some would say that you have 
> to have faith, and while this may be true, God alone gives that faith to 
> those whom he will. 

Now though he expresses an very Arminian thought that its our own damn fault
if we reject salvation (pun intended):

> ----  Not so Keith.  The bible says that God is not willing that any man
> should perish, but that all may be saved.  That is, however, wishful
> thinking.  I won't get into this lengthy subject, but some will and some
> won't be saved, it is as simple as that.  God doesn't want it that way,
> but it is.  He is just, and fair.  He put the sacrifice on the table, and
> if we don't come to eat, our loss.

Steve, Calvinism states that your god has made it impossible for use to "eat"
at the table of salvation, without an explicit invite from your god.  Thus
those who do not eat from the table of salvation, are damned explicitly
because your god does not want them there.  Calvin himself, explicitly says as
much, and the theology of Calvinism makes no sense otherwise.  Yes it is true
that, according to Calvinism, if we don't "eat", it is our loss, but it is not
our choice.  Nor can a Calvinist claim (as you did), that some will be damned,
but your god doesn't want it that way:

> I won't get into this lengthy subject, but some will and some
> won't be saved, it is as simple as that.  God doesn't want it that way,
> but it is.

If your Calvinist god wanted everyone saved, he'd simply save them.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    ... when does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so 
    many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death 
    unless because it so pleased God?
				Calvin
				Institutes
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:04:41 GMT

In article <Bszp1q.MAo@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>By the way, the trinity originally comes from the triple Goddess  __ which comes
>from the three aspects of the female human or the fertile delta or\/ . This 
>explains why the Christians have such a tough time figuring out the trinity. 
>After all, Christianity is not about the Goddess, about Her-story, or is it? 
>Is fear of the trinity misogyny?

This reminds me of Chekov in Star Trek claiming that all the important
historical figures were really Russians.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Evidence of God
Organization: Are you sewious?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:41:58 GMT

In article <l97vc4INNnvu@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:
>Hi all,
>Just want to say, that I'll be gone for a couple of weeks.
>So during that time, this series will be suspended.
>dennis
>kriz@skat.usc.edu

Submitted for your perusal, evidence that God does in fact exist. At the
stop sign ahead, it is in fact the twilight zone. Now, quick, grasshopper,
grab pebbles from snatch.

P.S. I assume of course that you will be back posting those megaposts on
all details of Catholicism in short order. Yet more evidence of God's
fickleness. Well at least my j key gets a good workout. Maybe you should
look into auto-posting. Now why did I say that? Could it have been ... the
Church Lady?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:57:22 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1246@esl.ESL.COM> 
markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
really discuss points in the Bible.

In article <Bsxpw5.911@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
And that modern day prophet is ... [drumroll please] ... YOU! Only you can
interpret the written word for yourself, only your beliefs are valid for
yourself. This is what it means to be an individual. This is what it means
to be free. Now, walk that freedom walk and talk that freedom talk. Realize
the prophet and profit in you. The walls must come down, the era of strong
central government and strong central church is over. Welcome the era of the
free, self-thinking, individual. You are number 1, the king is no more!
Be seeing you!

In article <1992Aug16.231225.16231@sdf.lonestar.org> 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
I think this whole "prophet" thing is absurd.  Suppose we have some
lunatic who claims to be a prophet...and i'm sure there is no shortage
of them...how do we know if he's crazy or if he's actually receiving
TRUE visions from GOD?!?!

In article <fRqfqRo@quack.sac.ca.us>
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
Well, how do YOU know? It's pretty straightforward, isn't it? Who can be
the judge of what YOU find to be revelation or absurdity? YOU do know
the answer, don't YOU? Why, it is none other than ... YOU! Why do YOU
act surprised? The creator delivered you FROM slavery, why do you cling
to the broken shackles? Surely you don't expect someone to show you the
way to freedom, do you? You are already FREE! What holds you back?
---
So tell me, what was the purpose of having prophets in the past?

Mark
-- 
Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a
criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
-- Werner Heisenberg
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion