HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:33:42 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: In article <1992Aug17.171307.8600@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: >This is a wonderful justification for henotheism, but the claim that
: >Christianity is a monotheistic religion is still unsupported other 
: >than the assertion that God is the "one true god", whatever that means.
: 
: I have my doubts.
: 
: Even atheists believe in the existence of things powerful than they are; an
: airplane can fly me to Europe.  I can't fly to Europe on my own, no matter
: how hard I try.  But an airplane isn't a god.
: 
: The definition of "gods" seems to be that "gods" have some sort of power which
: is different from that of people.  Which _really_ means that whether or not
: something is a god depends on where you draw the line for what kind of power
: counts.  You draw the line somewhere between airplanes and angels, and I draw
: the line somewhere between angels and creator-deities.

The article that started this thread expired, but began as a quote by
Laura ??? about how Satan was the god of the earthly realm while God 
was the god of Heaven or some such thing.  I wish I'd kept the quote.
You draw the line between angels and creator-deities.  On which side of 
the line does Satan fall?  Actually, it seems kind of silly for 
non-believers to argue the point.  It's kind of like atheists arguing
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

: (And if you reply "well, the line gets drawn between supernatural and
: non-supernatural beings", I will point out that one could argue that if angels
: exist they must certainly not be supernatural since the laws of the universe
: obviously permit their existence.  

If this is true, is God supernatural?  What does supernatural mean?

: I will also note that you really haven't
: given me any reason to think your concept of gods fits most people's concept
: of gods.)

I think most people consider the pagan gods to fall within the
definition of gods.  Just because they don't believe the existance
of them doesn't exclude them.  After all, I accept the premise
that God fits the definition of a god, but I don't believe he exists.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:33:25 GMT
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric

In article <1992Aug12.104120.28756@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>  
> 
> Are you then saying that you are going to edit OUT (cut out, reject, etc)
> the entire books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, and the five books of Moses?
> If you want to throw out the wash water and the baby too, well, that is 
> your decision. Tell me, how do you do handle the situation when one of these
> prophets is quoted by Jesus, even though they are (by definition of Deut
> 18:20) a False Prophet?
> -- 

My personal use of the bible is that of a spiritual anchor, rusty
as it is. I don't look for perfection from the books. I don't read
or heed the prophets with such excitement as you seem to. I need to
pick and choose what is correct and what is not in my estimation.
Deut. 18:20 is to me a very reasonable measure for a prophet of the
living God(tm). If the books are not recorded accurately, I can't
say for certain this prophrt failed, this prophet passed. But in
more contemporary times because of the printing press and the huge
volume of writings that result, the job is less difficult to fathom.
I can't speak for all Christianity, but that's my view.

On Jesus, I can only speculate that he knew more than I or the
current scholars who must dig for original and comparative manuscripts
to fathom what the prophets said and didn't say. It is a matter of
trust for me.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:27:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.133830.9353@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >> 	From the facts today's science has given to us. 
> 
> >  Could you be more precise?  What facts are these that eliminate
> >macroevolution?  Do you have any references to scientific journals?
> 
> 	They're called missing links. Any textbook will do. 

  Well, by any textbook I assume you mean a biological textbook (don't remember
anything about missing links in my abstract algebra book).

  I slipped over to the library and glanced in the index of 30 different Biology
textbooks.  Only 2 even had an entry for "Missing link", one was 20 years old,
the other even older.  Both said the same thing: Darwin proposed that his
hypothesis could be confirmed by finding a link, which was missing _at the time_
between man and apes.  Both also said the fossils needed to confirm this have
since been found.

  In other words, the only bio textbooks which even mention the "Missing Link"
say it has already been found.

  Not to be daunted, I slipped over to the human evolution section and glanced
in 40 books there.  Not a single one had an entry for "missing link".

  I am afraid you will have to be more specific about your references.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Questions about religious experience [WAS: An open question...]
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:17:56 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug14.125146.6956@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Some open questions...respond to as many as you like. All responses we
> 
> An open question...

Right. Now that I have time to do this right, I will complete this post. 
Here is the first of my "open questions" to readers of t.r.m. :

>  1.
> 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.?
> 

And some more: (please answer as many as you have a mind to)

2. If you had such an experience, please describe it as best you can, 
preferably in non-doctrinal language. Example: Instead of saying "I saw God,"
say "I saw a bright light that seemed profoundly good..." etc.  I'm looking for
details of your experience (in this question) not conclusions about it. 

3. If you belong to a dualistic (good/evil) religion, what led you to conclude
that your experience came from "God" rather than "the Devil?" (substitute 
whatever names are appropriate in your case)

4. If you adhere to an exclusivist position (i.e. "my religion is the only true
faith") how do you account for claims adherents of other religions make
regarding religious experiences, visions, etc.? 

Well, I guess these are enough for now.  

Oh, and don't worry - I'm not laying traps or looking to convert anyone. I 
just find this subject fascinating and look forward to increasing 
my understanding, etc. etc. 

Contribute to my education - please! And if you post instead of e-mailing, you
can probably start some pretty good threads. However, those who e-mail will
not have their privacy compromised.

Thank you in advance.


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:06:56 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>i wrote:
>>
>>  i'm sorry for the ambiguity.  both you and i do not discount the
>>relevance of other people's spiritual experiences.  you discount them,
>>but i do not.  i recognize the ability to have non-jesus spiritual
>>experiences because i used to have them.  so on that we disagree.
>>so i'm not doing any special pleading.  what i meant above is that
>>"i suspect that you'd discount their realities as well [as mine] 
>>because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically unverifiable
>>as mine."  sorry for the ambiguity.

>Mr. Buckley: You cite your Jesus spiritual experiences as evidence
>of the existence of Jesus, yet despite the fact that you admit
>that people have had non-Jesus spiritual experiences, you do not
>consider this to be evidence of the existence of other deities.
>[Christianity is not a polytheistic religion in the sense
>that it does not accept e.g. the existence of Vishnu].
>That is known as special pleading.

  i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Sola Scriptura (was Re: Perfect Prophets?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:35:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/(hedrick)
/Real
/theological work involves studying concepts as they appear across all
/of Scripture.  The amount of error in transmission of the text is
/insignificant on this scale.  Indeed most Christians who deny
/inerrancy believe that the non-textual errors (i.e. errors that were
/present in the originals, and not added in the copying process) are
/also not sufficient to affect the results.

I am not sure that this is true.

Even if it is, the disturbing tendency among Christians is to
base an entire belief or dogma on one or two scriptures, or even on 
one WORD in their favorite scripture.  Look at the abortion storm over
the phrase "before I formed you in your mother's womb, I knew you".

Many Christians will try to extract volumes of information out of the
placement of words, or even where a comma falls; i.e. Christ's words to
the thief on the cross:


"Verily I say unto you, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

vs,

"Verily I say unto you today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Survey
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:35:35 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <920818174611_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM> 70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) writes:
>
>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

A couple of answers come to mind.  Maybe:

  "Well, you probably shouldn't.  After all, I did take an axe to that
   mindless couple you set to annoying large numbers of people with
   inane questions."

Or, maybe not.  Perhaps:

  "What?  _You_ again?  Look, I told you before, go find some nice
   children to slaughter, or invent leprosy, or something.  Now,
   bugger off!"



-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug13.205824.21196@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:21:00 GMT

In article <65914@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes: 
Not bad - we (Christians) are a priesthood of believers, I'd hesitate
to say we are prophets.  However, one must recall that the Holy Spirit
is here to teach and guide us in all things.
  John 14:26   But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
      will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind
      you of everything I have said to you.

In article <1992Aug13.205824.21196@u.washington.edu> 
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
  Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack,"
             he said. "Go sell everything you have and give to the poor,
             and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."



---
Yes, spoken like a true teacher, Follow me and be free! And don't be
fooled into thinking that that is not a test of your individuality.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject:   science and religion
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:50:51 GMT

Daniel A Ashlock writes:

>   In my view the pope is sensibly leaving science to scientists, even funding
>the occasional conference with only the weakest of strings attached, and
>worrying about his church, people, and political agenda.  Fundamentalists take
>note.

  a good point.  but i think an equally good point is the importance of
being synthesists as well as specialists:

   religion without science is blind,
   science without religion is lame.

                                    -  papa einstein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: "mean" witches (and a request for courtesy and tolerance)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:15:25 GMT


In a previous article, judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) says:

>Better check that your house is not glass before you start throwing those
>stones.
>
>Now, that said, does anything come of this sort of tit-for-tat?  Or can we
>not honestly say that "Humans have been treating one another like shit for
>thousands of years and using everything from religious preference to skin
>color to accident of birth to justify their behavior".  If so, can we please
>try to do just a LITTLE better?  
>
>D.C's ancestors were burned at the stake.  My ancestors were fed to lions.
>Other ancestors were crucified, tortured, held hostage for years, enslaved,
>dismembered, etc., etc., etc.  No religion is free from having been either
>persecuted or persecutor.  No race is free from having been either 
>persecuted or persecutor.  No country, no economic class, no nobody is clean
>and sparkling and free from a very violent and bloody human history.
>
>There are two ways out of this mess.  We can hold one another accountable and
>continue this violent and bloody history into enternity.  OR we can forgive and
>communicate and try to understand and make room and somehow live together.
>I choose the latter.  But, then again, I may not get a choice.
>-- 
I fully agree with and commend Judy for her comments.  Until we are able, as
a race (the human race) to set aside our petty differences, such as ethnicity,
race, religion, social standing, and sexual orentation, we'll never be able
to get to the major problems, such as illness, polulation, starvation, and
economics.

Unfortunatly, they'll always be those among us who insist on throwing rocks,
saying "they threw the first ones".

The Jews are taking land from the palistinians, the whites enslaved the blacks,
the poor want to steal from the rich, the gays are trying to recrute straight 
children, on and on and....

And most of these attitudes are utterly without foundation, and even if they
aren't, they are probably obsolete attitudes, or worse, being perpetuated by
groups who have a vested interest in the outcome.

Let's quit fighting among ourselves, and start fighting for the best interest
of our planet, our race, ourselves.

Any other attitude is an invitation to disaster.


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:00:26 GMT


>> 
>>   -- Scott @Brandeis
>> 
>>                            I asked Jesus,
>>                      "How much do you love me?"
>>                      "This much," He answered;
>>                         and He stretched out
>>                          His arms and died.

>Yah. Right. An incarnate God who knew full well that he'd be returning to 
>God-form (?) and paradise is a real hero for undergoing an execution that he
>KNEW was no more than a minor annoyance. Forgive me for not experiencing
>overwhelming waves of gratitude.

>Sean Hartigan
>hartigasn@ac.dal.ca

I gather some Christians also believe that Jesus had to believe
himself to be fully human in order to suffer and die for us as
advertised.  They consider Matthew and Mark to be the earliest and most
reliable gospels, in which J.C. claims to be no more than the Messiah,
whom Jewish theology did not equate with God.  Luke came later and
added proofs of divinity such as the miraculous virgin birth (Is the
Xmas story in Luke?, I know Mat. and Mark start with John the Baptist
anyway).  John is latest of all and includes many contributions from
Greek philosophy.  Ask a Christian for proof that Jesus claimed to be
God and you will find almost all unambiguous quotes to be from John
(actually "according to John", so claims that "he should know because
he was there" presuppose that the author of "John" is John).  Matthew
and Mark also do not claim that Jesus was physically present after his
resurrection, he "appeared to" the apostles et al.  The later gospels add
physical evidence such as touching the wounds etc.  

I'm not an expert, the most recent book I've read on this subject is
"The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity" by Albert Schweitzer,
which reviews the development of Jewish and early Christian theology.
He has his own theological viewpoint which leads him to certain
"obvious" interpretations and he also claims certain parts of Matthew
and Mark are "obviously" later insertions. Not being an expert, I have
no idea how obvious these things are. Anyway its a refreshing change
from rigid fundamentalism and inerrancy.  

Of course its equally plausible to claim that the reason Jesus thought
he was fully human was because that was in fact exactly what he was.
Even if you believe in miracles, earlier prophets had performed
miracles through the action of God without actually being God.

---- Maureen O'Halloran
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14295 talk.religion.newage:3866 sci.physics:13107
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:09:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug20.050941.26630
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (Scott Chase) writes:
>They don't understand...that physics deals with the facts of the mechanical
>world and that religion deals with morals and values and that the two are
>completely disjoint bodies of knowledge.  
>
This sounds a bit extreme to me.  It's quite difficult to maintain
the position that science is completely disjoint from morals and values.
The fact/value distinction isn't as clear-cut as we like to think.

Tom McFarlane
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:09:08 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug11.113210@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> 
|>   I thought this was worth crossposting to talk.origins, just so you know.
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug11.150704.27620@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
|> Siivonen) writes:
   ...
|> > 	I know only parthenogenetic sea-animals. Correct if I'm wrong. 
   ...
    Welcome talk.religion.misc'ers to talk.origins 

    Isn't it a coincidence?  Here we were talking about the species
with many (>>2) sexes and other such things, while our friends over
in talk.religion.misc were talking about parthenogenic species.

    1.  I believe that there are species of lizards which are 
parthenogenic.  Apparently, they have evolved, by microevolution,
from one or more bisexual species on the Ark in the last 4000 or so
years since the Flood, so that a male and female of each could be
taken on the Ark?  Or is there some other explanation?

    2.  We are yet to hear, as the topic has not been introduced to
this thread, how the multisexual "kinds" survived in reproducible
form on the Ark as only a pair.  If they arose by microevolution,
perhaps we could also get an explanation how a species of a dozen
or so sexes could microevolve from a species of two sexes.

    3.  And, just to keep things interesting, I would like to know
about the old hermaphroditic earthworms -- how did Noah keep a male
earthworm and a female earthworm -- every individual contains both
sexes -- on the Ark?  Or, are you going to say that all of the
species of earthworm microevolved from something on the Ark which
did have separate sexes?  A little explanation might be in order,
for example what was the creature from which all the earthworms
microevolved, and how did the sexes get mixed together into each 
individual.  (BTW, if you care, you might also remind us how the
earthworms got to, for example, North America after the Flood.)

    4.  By the way, as long as we're going to talk about a 
parthenogenic species, and perhaps multisexual and hermaphroditic 
species as well as a whole lot of other microevolution (we had a
thread a short time ago about how that million or so diseases arose
since the Flood) -- what leads you to believe (maybe you have a 
Biblical quote or something like that) that gorillas and chimpanzees 
are not of the same "kind" as us.  It seems to me that a lot less 
microevolution would be required to get chimpanzees, gorillas, and
humans from one species than all of that needed for these other 
species.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc