HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:57:22 GMT

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes...
>> 
>>Maintaining certain facts about reality has consequences for our values.
>>Maintaining certain values has consequences for what facts we will find.
>
>Whether you maintain them or not, they are still the facts.  If you happen
>to know them then perhaps you will behave differently.  But I doubt it.  
>Can you provide an example of a specific fact or law of physics that influences
>the moral value of any specific societal rule or law of behavior in any
>definite way?
>-Scott
Fact:  Smoking causes cancer.
Societal Rule: Cigarette comercials banned from TV, smoking prohibited
               in many public places,  and considered bad by many people.
Law of Physics:  Classical mechanics.
Moral Value:  The materialistic view of the world, and all its consequences
              for our view of humankind's place in the world.
-Tom McFarlane

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Evidence of God
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:04:56 GMT

In article <BtAxLz.E5G@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>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?
>

The details of Catholicism show only MAN's fickleness in his interpretation of
God's Word.  God's Word is permanent and non-changing. Man changes his
interpretation of the Word (wrongfully) to achieve humanistic desires.  

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: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:51:27 GMT

Thomas.Sullivan@cs.cmu.edu writes:

>Food for thought:

>We are aways hearing that if you don't accept Jesus as your personal
>savior that you will not go to heaven.  I have always had a hard time
>with this statement as it does not seem to point to a very loving or
>forgiving God.  It does not allow for people who may never have even
>heard of Jesus, or who have had Jesus presented to them in a less than
>Christian (what I consider Christian) manner.

  well, i think the existence of jesus is how god shows he is loving 
and forgiving.  why would god just forgive us out of the blue.  we
need forgiveness because we rebelled against his rules and we have 
run from him, so it is to him we must be redeemed.  but transgression
demands punishment that was borne out of god's love through jesus--
that free gift that people in t.r.m love to punt through the somantic
goal-posts.  and when it comes to 2-week old ethiopian starving babies
being sent to hell, as some of my friends have challenged me with,
and when it comes to those who haven't heard of jesus, what i know
[i'll find the sources later if anyone wants them] is that god judges
us based on what we know.  and if one individual hears of jesus and
rejects him, god will hold that more against that person than god
will hold accountable a 2-week old dying baby.  this is because god's
relationship with us isn't hypothetical--it's real and we each have
choices to make based on what we have heard and what we have consciously
accepted or rejected.


---                          
     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?"
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:11:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[...]

>   2.3  LDS interpretations:  The LDS accept JS as a true prophet.
>However, a caveat should be mentioned.  Prophets, revelation, and
>scripture are not inerrant or infallible according to the Mormon
>tradition.  JS can make mistakes and still be a true prophet.  Revelation
>is a combination of ideas from God, mixed with human reception and
>perception. 

[...]

	In the LDs religion, what is the difference between a false 
prophet and a true prophet? What is the definition of a false prophet 
in the LDs religion?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:24:31 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?

>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>Gen. 7:19

>That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
>knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.

Not at all...it says ALL the mountains under ALL the heavens (NIV)...and
then 7:20 says it went about 20ft higher, and reafirms all the mountains
being covered...

 -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
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:57:43 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <BsxIFo.26p@rice.edu> mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:

>Calvinists say that if God knows all of what is going to happen, that
>means he is the motivator/cause of that action.  If He knows you are going
>to be saved, that means you are "Predestined" (tm) and that it is His
>causing.
>
Well, just God knowing it does not mean he caused it.  Of course
if you do believe in a deterministic universe (the only kind that
can be known completely) and God created the universe, then He
certainly can be said to have caused it.

>This seems to me simple logical confusion.  You don't have to use God as 
>an example here.  Let's say a psychic predicts some event.  He/she has
>perfect foreknowledge of it.  The event then happens.  Is the psychic
>the cause of the event?  Not at all.
>
In order to serve as an analogue, the psychic would have to know all
events with 100% certainty.  In this case, the psychic would be
omniscient, and the universe deterministic.  Free will would only
be an illusion in such a universe.  But still, as I said, once
could be omniscient without being creator of the deterministic
universe, and thus the psychic, not being creator would not be
the cause.  Calvin's God, being the creator, is the cause.

>Of course God knows who will be saved and damned - he is omniscient and outside
>of time.  But those actions He foreknows are still a result of free will.
>(My own, nonCalvinist view.)  Calvinism just commits a logical error in then
>prescribing the cause of those decisions to God.
>
Again, I disagree.  If all events in the universe can be known
by any being, inside or outside of time, then they will occur
in the way that being knows they will (or sees them in the future,
or whatever) and cannot occur any other way.  This makes the universe
deterministic and is totally incompatible with any notion of free will,
other than it might seem to you that you have free will.  Free will
only makes sense if you might alter the future by your choice, but
since the future already exists (for God) and is known, it is determined,
and there is no true free will.  It doesn't make any sense to say God
knows what you will choose but you still have the choice.  You don't
have the choice if the way you will choose is already determined.  You
just think you do.

Again, I'm not arguing that Calvin was *right*, just consistent.
I do not believe omniscience or omnipotence make any sense at
all, and don't believe in such a God myself.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:18:40 GMT

=============================
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
>>evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
>
>>Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
>>law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
>>entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
>>some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

 Laws of Science should never be taken in isolation.

  For example:

  Extending this line of argument, the laws of thermodynamics require that
  diamond cannot exist. Diamond is not the "maximum entropy" form of carbon.
  But, diamond exists. Why?
	- because, thermodynamics is just one of the guiding laws. Kinetics
	  is another. The laws of process kinetics do allow the feasibility
	  of diamond formation.
	- thermodynamics helps understand/explain large systems.
	  Things happen, according to thermo, because "system" entropy 
	  increases. So, while diamond is formed - while not maximizing 
	  carbon's entropy - the non-isolated system around carbon and carbon
	  together do achieve the maximum achievable entropy.

 Similar reasoning applies to existence of life forms.

 Furthermore,
 Scientific laws are themselves subject to evolution. Laws are derived from
 facts. And, not the other way around.

 noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>Though I haven't yet touched upon evolution here, evolution is clearly an
>intergenerational organic process, subject to the same processes and
>thermodynamic analysis I outline in the previous paragraph.  Thus, I don't
>believe that one can use 2nd Law arguments to "prove" that evolution is
>impossible without the guiding hand of an intelligent "Guider" or "Assistor"
>who is outside of the physical universe (not to say there isn't, however).

 I agree.
 However, one can question the existence of intelligent Guider outside of the
 physical world. Does the 2nd law apply to the guiding hand? Is there really 
 something outside of the physical world? If everything in physical world,
 for existence, needs something from "outside," then why doesn't the outside
 need something from "outside-outside?" What was the origin of the "outside"?

 What is the origin of alternate hypothesis? 
 Questions. Endless questions.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - Vatican II on the Bible -- Dei Verbum
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:53:17 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <l90s30INNbgj@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:
>
>Earlier in the summer I promised to post this document regarding
>the Catholic Church's position on Divine Revelation...

Damn, Dennis.  Do you post _anything_ original?



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:36:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug20.135427.2385@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
}jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
}
}
}>I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
}>including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
}>Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".
}
}	Neither of them is an error, sorry. 

Not to you, Antti.  Your world is so idiotic that Behind the Looking Glass
would look sane by comparison.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:52:36 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <adams.714255871@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>}markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>}
>}>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>}
>}>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
>}
>}>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>}
>}>Gen. 7:19
>}
>}>That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
>}>knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.
>}
>}Not at all...it says ALL the mountains under ALL the heavens (NIV)...and
>}then 7:20 says it went about 20ft higher, and reafirms all the mountains
>}being covered...

>Ever wonder how it missed the nearby pyramids (that have NOT been submerged
>and WERE built before that time).  And why the tibetians and aztecs don't
>seem to have noticed it?

You must have missed my posting where I said that the message and symbolism is
more important than proving the actual events....

But, if you want a *long* book on the topic, which tries (and fails, IMHO)
to lay out why and how it could have happened as the Bible says, check out
"The Genesis Flood" published around 1960 or so.  It attempts to debunk
modern archeology....

 -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
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:14:27 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:


>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?

Gen. 7:19
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14401 sci.physics:13220 sci.chem:3116
From: vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:19:47 GMT
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory


     I think that,generally speaking, it is fruitless to get into vagaries
such as discussion of entropy to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Generally speaking, a person will believe what he wishes not matter what
arguments may be presented, whether pro or anti God.
     There was nevertheless an interesting determination as to the mathe-
matical probability I believe of an important molecule (perhaps DNA),
forming on its own, and the probability was so small as to be nonexistent.
I believe it was a French scientist, and the number was 10 to the some-
where between 74 and 141 or so AGAINST its forming.  Like I said, if 
anyone wants to believe in creation, they may tend to accept this first
chance, whereas those who don't first chance will say this isn't true
and I am lying without even checking it out.
Vince Summers
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:39:51 GMT
Summary: Jesus as God(tm)
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric

In article <1992Aug14.150712.19028@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
> 
>      Barry's right.  The idea of God sending a messiah was old, but the
> idea of God BEING the Messiah was new.  The idea that God would take upon
> Himself a body of flesh was indeed an idea that "came from nowhere."

Yes, to the jews it was unheard of. Yet there is evidence both ways
in the nt, enough to really confuse things:-) Jesus rebuked the teachers
of the law for not even recognizing him. So there is evidence for both
sides of the issue to chew on for another thousand years.
But Kevin, neither side can concur with Joseph's new revelation on the
nature of God:-) agreed?

barry--
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Summary: answers, answers, everyone wants answers
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:26:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug16.031219.28723@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
> 
> This is a fairly common course taken when Christians witness to others.

Thank you, but I don't witness to others unless asked:-)

> Things were terrible until I found Christ, etc.  I find this to be a

In my case this is almost correct. Things were quite normal 'cause
I didn't know any other way.

> 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 

In my case that is possible. I can't say for sure.

> similar service for Hindus and Buddists?  Are we lab mice who God
> delivers electric shocks to until he provokes the desired response?

I don't know.

> 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

And you're complaining 'cause you're Not unlucky? That's a new one:-)

> 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'?

I don't know. I didn't worry about it in my life. I was very indifferent
to the whole religious package as it was presented to me(quite often).
I felt myself one day overwhelemd by the crap in my life and quite
spontaneously asked the Lord into my life, and if he is real I would let
Him run things. I had 25 years running my own life, and the results of
that to look at, so I figured I'd let Him run the next 25 and compare
the two(of course after HIs presence was made real to me).
I don't know Jeff. I don't have much wealth. I'll probably never
own a home. I'll probably always drive used cars. Who cares? I don't.

I hope my little testimony didn't sound like I was gloating, although
I am really happy. Everyone's story is different, we can't all have the
same exact experiences. I believe in the great diversity of God(tm) to
deal with everyone individually.

I suppose I should just keep quiet and not tell anyone of my 
experience, but when something nice comes your way(general "your")
it is acceptable to tell others about it, imo.

barry--
> -- 
> Jeff Young
> 
> Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Interfaith Group Opposes Christian Right
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 22 Aug 1992 23:34:54 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

The Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA), an ultra Right Wing Christian
organization, is involved in a well-funded far-reaching initiative
in Oregon to amend the constitution of that state.  It is collecting
signatures for an initiative which would deprive gay people
of protection under anti-discrimination laws, amend the state
constitution to declare that they are "abnormal, wrong, unnatural
and perverse" and that this view shall be promoted in the public
schools of that state.

The Buddhist Peace Fellowship members have been working against
the OCA as part of the Religious Response Network, an interfaith
committee opposing the use of religious doctrine for the oppression
of minorities.

Persons who wish to participate in this work may contact Kuya Minogue
at the Eugene Zendo, 3480 Potter Street, Eugene, OR 97405.

I have withheld the phone number as opponents of the measure have been
subjected to harrassment and barrages of hate calls by its supporters.

Jack Carroll
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14414 alt.atheism:15546
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:50:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>you!

  Could you then explain to me what happens if I choose to blaspheme
  against the spirit (whatever the hell that means) regardless of
  this wonderful free gift???  Or what happens if I knowingly reject
  the message of Christ after having believed?  Hmmm?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - Church teaching on masturbation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 18 Aug 1992 16:06 EST  

In article <1992Aug16.165431.21364@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes...
>Lets see according to the catholic church homosexuals and people who
>masturbate are disordered. Lets see 30% of the population has had sex
>with the same sex, I wonder what percentage masturbates :-)

According to Kinsey, it is 92% of males and 70% of females.  That's a lot
of disordered people!

> 
>And the catholic church wonders why its losing members!
>