HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:28:30 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.


 (Young Jeff) wrote:
 >Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
 >to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
 >that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
 >fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
 >than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
 >passing the buck on this?
 
 >(Paul Harvey) replies:
 >The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
 >should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
 >good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
 >for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's

 >(Dan O'Connell) reply to the reply:  Since it was the creator's intent,
 >the creator is responsible.  Although Adam & Eve may have thought they had
 >"free will", from god's point of view, they didn't have since
 >he was omniscent.
 >He could have given them the gift of knowledge without
 >exacting any price whatsoever, yet as he gave, he took away.
 >This could be called capricious behavior.


I believe the premise is wrong here.  The Adam & Eve "thang" really wasn't
over a piece of fruit nor was it over the attainment of the knowledge of 
good and evil.  It was over whether Adam and Eve would obey or disobey 
God.  God gave them a clear order.  Man disobeyed God.  Nobody forced
Eve to take the bite.  What enticed Eve?  What made her bite?  That's
the interesting story.  When you discover that, then you know the answer
to why man has been screwing himself over for millenia.

--Brian


P.S.   What do Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:17:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.213024.9238@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00jdbecktel@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>In file 21555 you are referring to God as a she so you say. WRONG.... It says
>in Genesis that God created man in his own image, so how can God be a woman 
>when it says otherwise in the Bible.                          
Actually, it says that "God created man in his own image, male and
female created he them." This has been a source of much dispute, and
certainly does not produce the clear answer you seek.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: travers@iwarp.intel.com (Jim Travers)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Followup-To: travers@iwarp.intel.com 
Organization: Intel iWarp, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:36:49 GMT

In article <Aug.30.03.48.00.1992.12942@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>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.


Just so.  And further, anyone who thinks that atheism and religion aren't 
the opposite sides of the same coin, isn't looking very carefully.
 


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15423 alt.atheism:16379
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:16:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <182hevINN5sg@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>First, I don't see why the people against overpopulation care.  I'm guessing that
>they are all from the U.S., which is barely affected by overpopulation, domestic
>or foreign.

From my perspective, the very fact that you ask this question shows a
rather selfish mindset. You are in essence saying, If overpopulation 
doesn't effect me, why should I care? 

If I had your mindset, I guess I'd become a Republican. However, I 
believe that as a member of a society one has a certain obligation to
improving the well being of members of that society. I consider myself
to be a world citizen, and as such I believe I have an obligation to
try to improve the quality of life of all living creatures of this 
world that I'm a member of, if I can do so in some way.

>Secondly, if you think foreign overpopulation is hurting the environment, that
>damage is nothing compared to the damage done by industrialized nations with 
>low population growth.  There are much more important things to bitch about that
>foreign overpopulation in an environmental light.

Yes, overpopulation is hurting our environment. I define overpopulation
as a population that is not sustatinable. I guess that means that we
are overpopulated too.

>Third, you're probably going to get your wish, because aids will devistate the
>3rd world.

Not the way I'd like things to be, but I guess that if humanity can not
manages its own affairs, nature will do that for us.

>Jon Newton

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15153 alt.atheism:16123
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:15:56 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
> 
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>>Apologies in advance, but this strikes me as silly. Forgiveness is in the mind
>>>of the forgiver.  If Joe punches me, and I take offense, do I need him to
>>>be willing to be forgiven before I can forgive him?  No! His attitude is
>>>irrelevant.  I say to myself, well I'm not going to hold it against him. He may
>>>say he wants me to hold it against him. But if I want to forgive him, that
>>>matters not a whit. You are forgiven, Joe - even if you hate me, I will not
>>>hold anything against you. 
> 
>>  wow, it seems in this you have described just how it is.  god forgives
>>us regardless of whether we accept it or even acknowledge the necessity
>>of god's forgiveness.  god says, "your are forgiven, [everyone] - 
>>even if you hate me, i will not hold anything against you."  
> 
>>  but we still have the freedom to ignore that forgiveness and all it
>>entails.  just like joe can choose to ignore your forgiveness.

The silly part is that God forgives me for rejecting him, than damns me to
eternal Hell anyway.   If my attitude is irrelevant, as you admit above,
saying that I have "described just how it is..." then I am forgiven
no matter what I do. God holds nothing against me, whether I accept his
forgiveness or not. If I am forgiven *regardless* of my attitude, then
WHY am I going to Hell?   

And DON'T say that I have to ACCEPT the forgiveness to make it real. That is
just utter nonsense, as you have already admitted. 
              
If I forgive somebody, I DON'T punish them anyway. If I do, then I never
really forgave them, did I?

In caps:

THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
A LOVING GOD. SORRY TO ANYONE OFFENDED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE FACT.

It's like trying to have a "square" circle! Can't do it! Broken definition.

Come on, admit it!!! :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dalca
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:31:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>(Young Jeff) writes:

> I can't remember if I got this same reply earlier here or via email.
> Since I haven't seen a reply yet, I will risk repeating it.  Orig.Sin.
> places the blame for the world's woes directly on us.  Lack of OS places
> the blame directly on God since he created the world such that
> evil was unavoidable.  What does this say about the justness of God?

>Of course one could make the argument that with or without original
>sin, if god had foreknowledge, and if god was the creator, then god
>created "evil". 

It's even simpler than that Dano.  If God is creator <<ex nihilo>> and evil
truly exists, then God created evil.

Foreknowledge doesn't even need to enter into it.

 -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
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:22:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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


> Paal Steinar Berg wondered:
> 
>  Can one combine these statements:
>  
>  1.God is allmighty.
>  2.God is only good. (i.e. not evil)
>  3.Evil things happens.

>(Steve Gross) replied:

> ---- Why do they have to be combined?  God IS Almighty.  God IS good.  
> God IS not evil.  And evil things do happen.  
> 
> Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it, or
> is the author of it.  The bible plainly says that Lucipher is the father
> of it, and not God.  Why does everyone always blame God?  Imagine God
> creating an angelic being with a mind, and emotions, etc...  could that

>This is called "begging the question." If god created everthing,
>including satan, then god also created evil; worse, if god is
>omniscent, then god knew what god was doing. . .

And?  So what?  If God wished to have freely given worship and love, the
logical possibility of not loving or worshping had to exist.  As such, I
don't see why there is such a big problem.  If we are to have a free will,
the possibility of sin had to exist...or there never truly was free will.

 -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: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quran Translation
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:23:49 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <1992Aug27.023510.16291@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>In article <l9ll70INNt3q@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
>Abd-Allah) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>  
>johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>>  
>> >     I would recommend the Dawood translation as a start (published in  
>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> I would not.  I've picked up his translation and it does not compare to  
>other
>> author's efforts.  Muhammad Asad's translation is far better, and it's
>> around ten bucks.  Free if you ask me to send a copy.  Asad is a known
>> scholar of Islam: Dawood is not.  Is knowledge of Greek the only
>> prerequisite for publishing a translation the Bible?

It may be that translations of the hebrew or greek testaments
do not have the same problems as translations of the Quran. I
think this to be so, because practically every introductory
essay about the Quran I have read (4 or 5 in an anthology)
written by Muhammad Iqbal, and others who are acknowledged to
be somewhat of an authority in the western world have stressed
that a person will best understand the writings by learning 
Arabic; and that this is much more of a consideration than 
in the hebrew or greek testaments. From what I've read, the
reader won't "really" get the poetry, unless read in the original.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah seems to think otherwise, and even if something
does get missed by reading a translation, I think one has to
start somewhere.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: The literal, inerrant truth of _Ecclesiastes_
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:56:01 GMT


Since the Bible is without flaw, and its story, beyond the obvious
wordplay of metaphor, is faultlessly true, then what the Preacher
tells us is true; and what _Ecclesiastes_  tells us is the folly of
attempting to show the rationality, which is to say the
reasonableness, of belief.
Of course, Paul says the same thing, which only goes to emphasize the
Preacher's warning against the writing of books.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Take back the English language from ... hmm?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:24:17 GMT

(Graham Matthews) writes:
Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
truth of something without justification. To claim that you can include
scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.

(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
Well, it's too bad you use such a limited definition of
faith.  I believe others have gotten more mileage out of a 
wider definition.

(Douglas Graham) writes:
Uh, Dan.  Like Graham said, you need to discard all the rhetoric.  Sure
it's possible to add a lot words around Graham's definition in order
to obfuscate the fact that religious faith is just unfounded belief in
something.  Theologians excell at these sort of word games.  But word games
don't help anybody to understand anything.  Their purpose is quite the
opposite.

me responds:
How sad that we seem to have lost another perfectly good word to those who
seek to sell religion. Ah well, I guess for many blind faith and religious
faith and faith have all become the same distasteful word. I don't know
about the rest, but I have faith that there is a difference between faith
and blind faith and religious faith, but perhaps some are right, only 100%
provable facts are to be trusted. What a sad state of affairs, if you ask me.
More fallout from the effects of trying to "sell" religion and "convert"
non-believers to the "one-true-way". I wonder if creation science will
devalue science in the same way that fundamentalism/evangelicalism has
devalued all religion. Is philosophy next, after all it is nothing but word
games also? And then mythology and fictional writing and ... I will keep my 
faith and my scepticism, thank you. And no, I certainly am not Christian or 
any ism, I am only me. You can label me as you like, but you can never
describe what it is to be me. Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the
world like me. Those were my first baby words and they shall be my last
dying breath.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: `LDS' vs `LDs' (for Robert Weiss)
Date: 23 Aug 92 11:36:45 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <BtEwn0.Lvn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

[...]
> This loads the argument that LDs doctrines are just minor 
                               ^^^
> differences between denominations. This presumes that the LDs are
                                                            ^^^
> just another Christian denomination. Accordingly, only the LDs
                                                             ^^^

[HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET (William J Hamblin) writes:]
[...]
>> 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.  

[psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)responds:]
> How can a LDs prophet speak something, and say that it is a
            ^^^
> revelation from God, and be wrong? How can he be a true prophet
> and speak (in thus saith the Lord delivery) and prophesy
> falsely?

I'm just being nit-picky here, but why do you insist on
abbreviating `Latter-Day Saint' as `LDs' instead of `LDS' or
`lds' like the rest of the world.  Are you trying to make some
kind of point or statement?  

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:43:19 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.715098634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
>>the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
>>be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
>>Eve.

>And it looks like I must remind you that you originally said that God
>made a deal with Eve that her seed would bring salvation in Genesis. As
>proof you claim that the snake is none other than the famous Christian
>Devil. Excuse me if I fail to follow that gigantic leap of faith. Now
>please, one more time, where in Genesis does it say that God made a deal
>with Eve that her seed would bring the salvation of us horrible,
>miserable, evil, vile, filthy and oh so humanistic human beings. We eaters 
>of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Maybe this helps:

I already posted it.  Your verses (Gen 2:25 - 3:7) are the lead up to what
I posted.  Go read Gen 3:14-15.  Your style over the past couple of weeks is 
comparable to Josh McDowell.  Polemic, but terrible ineffective.

>Now, are YOUR eyes open and do YOU see? What do you see?

My eyes are wide open.  I read the verses about the snake.  You failed to
make any point in your verses, other than asserting blatantly that I'm
wrong.  I've told you at least twice where the theology comes from,
including the verses.  How exactly do YOU interpret Gen 3:14-15?
Differently?  You are free to do that.  But you do not get to decide for
everyone what the verses mean.

 -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: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Learn from dogma but please do not be dogmatic
	<fRYkH6X@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Aug31.083310.2639@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.083310.2639@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>You have said nothing new and apparently have not heard what I said.
>Within living the Christian life I am not free in the way that you are
>saying.  I am bound by God's very narrow will.  I don't mind though, because
>His will is the best way I could live my life.
>I have a hard time relating to Christians who have non-Biblical stances on
>anything, so forgive me if I am a bit stubborn on this point.  I am in
>slavery to God, but that is how it should be, and I couldn't be happier about
>it, so what's the big deal?

I only ask that you think this out and make sure that you are not a slave to
your Christian Devil and are doing the work of that Devil in the name of
Jesus. I need only remind you that history is overflowing with people who
have declared their slavery to the Lord and in retrospect it is quite clear
that their master was the Christian Devil. Hitler would be the obvious example.
Clearly Hitler took Luke 14:26 literally. All is not hammer and anvil. You
may ally yourself with what looks like the biggest hammer you can find, but
that is still the way of darkness. The Lord delivered you FROM slavery because
it is His wish that you be a free man, not a slave. This is the same reason
that He did not create you with knowledge, you aquired this of your own
initiative by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Slavery is just a
crutch, a convenient way to blaim someone else for your problems. You were
freed long ago, any clinging to the broken shackles is of your own design,
your own failure to be a free human being. It is not easy walking the freedom
walk, but we have no choice. Blind faith in the Christian Devil is not the
way of light. Blind servatude to the Christian Devil as the one true slave
master is not the way of light. The way of light is the way of the free human
being. Be strong and chose the way of light, the way of freedom FROM slavery.
All along this country, we hear the word that man must be free, get ready,
children, we're gonna ride this freedom train. Hither I trod true this valley,
yet I fear no evil, because Jah guide, Jah guide, Jah guide. Jah! Ras TafarI!
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15361 alt.atheism:16315
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:34:47 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(ken bell) writes on a definition of faith:

 I won't attempt to say just now what relevance this account of faith has for 
 many of the problems discussed in this newsgroup, but perhaps it will 
 be of some help in future discussions, or even, begin a new thread.  In 
 any event, I welcome criticism.  

Well you asked for it.
I like it (pending exploring the ramifications of course :)

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc