HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:52:47 GMT
Organization: Clear Thinking, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:

      I have to agree with the original post.  IMHO, anything
      that requires man to have faith (i.e. cease to think),
      has a net result of being harmful.  Mans intellectual
      evolution has been severely retarded by religion.

Without "faith" in the unknown and the scarcely believeable,
it is unlikely "science" would have progressed as far as it
has.

Clearly "faith" does not mean "ceasing to think", much
as you would like to have it that way; perhaps in one sense,
it means being willing to hold as true for a moment, pending
further investigation.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<sbuckley.714121616@sfu.ca> <ksand-010992175414@wintermute.apple.com>
	<sbuckley.714432253@sfu.ca> <ksand-240892181343@wintermute.apple.com> 
	<sbuckley.714968041@sfu.ca> <ksand-290892180055@wintermute.apple.com> 
	<la54p6INN4bi@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug18.195726.13662@anasaz> 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:17:08 GMT

(Kent Sandvik) writes to Stephen Buckley:
I have faith in that
most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
truth would create a *universal* religion.
  
(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) wrote:
Hmmm. If we say that simple mathematics is universally true
then were is our universal religion?

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

me writes:
Hmm, let's see, how can I splain it? I know, I'll take it frame by frame it!
p to the h to the y ...
There's six little letters that are missing here, you get it on occasion at
parties, seems like I outta start the esplaining. We are all a product of the 
Big Bang, but I still can't believe I missed out on that party. So if you're
down with this throw your hands up high and when you do it do it well, you're
now down with a discount. Who's down with p-h-y? ... And s-i-c? Damn skippy
I'm wit it!
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15538 alt.atheism:16458
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:49:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Bu0JL7.CJ3@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>Well, some of us, me included, find the very concept of a supreme
>being who request, nay, DEMANDS, ultimate servitude from his subjects
>offensive in the extreme.  Why does your god require this of you?

He does not require it.  He does however require us to love Him.  It would
naturally follow then that those who love Him would do what He wants...  I
guess in a roundabout way He requires alignment with His will.  Why?  Because
we can only know real joy if we know and do His will.  You view God as just
another entity trying to control you.  I view God as my cause and creator who
knows what is best for me more than I do.  His burden is not heavy though,
and only positive things have happened because of my service to Him, so I
don't regret being a "slave" to God.  Note that it is willing slavery -- I am
free to do whatever whenever without being struck dead or damned, but if I
love God and want to draw closer to Him I won't do things He doesn't like.
(And will do things He does...)

>I guess it's because I place more value in freedom than I do in
>contentment.

I think it is freedom in that you are living how you were meant to live.  The
fact that this path is narrow does not change anything.

>By the way, are you a determinist, too?

God knows what I have done, am doing, and will do.  He can _observe_ all time
at once, because time is merely a created quantity like mass or energy.  He
does not interfere with man's free will within our time frame.  For instance
He knows whether or not you will be with Him once this creation has passed
away, but He does not force the decision.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 05:25:40 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

[]

	This really isn't worth my time, but...

	Eric quoted a figure from ZPG about there being "enough" food to
feed something like 3.2 gigafolk. Does it really take much thought to
see this is a meaningless statement, a pseudo-statistic? As Eric did,
indeed, agree, food supply is not a constant. If he knows that, just
what does he think this ZPG nonsense _means_? As an argument for zero
population growth it is simply ludicrous.

	Life is not a zero-sum game. Everybody agrees with that when
it's stated in such a general fashion, but many proceed to forget
it when anything specific gets discussed. It's just like the way
everyone will admit, "yes, I have faults". Want some fun? Next time you
hear someone say that, say "name three of yours" :-).

	I think one day I'm gonna disband the QQQCLC and form the SASG -
Society Against Stupid Generalities.

						Kayembee
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Light
Date: 30 Aug 92 09:53:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <92242.203238SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>Another sighting of The Light goes thusly,
>
>    Thus spoke Ahura Mazda:
>    "The one, who alone has hearkened to my commands
>         and is known to me, is Zarathushtra Spitama,
>    For his Creator and for Truth, he wishes to announce
>         my holy message,
>    Wherefore I shall bestow upon him the charm of speech."
>
>                                          Gathas: Yasna 29-8
>
>Jack Carroll

So.... believe it and see if it works out.  If not, move on!  I hope you get
around to Christianity!

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: meaning of Tree of (eternal) Life
Keywords: Genesis 3: 22-24
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:37:01 GMT

JPS:Tanakh(ISBN:0-8276-0252-9):Genesis 3:22-24
(22)And the Lord God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us,
knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take
also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" (23)So the Lord
God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he
was taken. (24)He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of
Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to
the tree of life.

Traditional Jewish story told on Rosh Hashanah:
Ref: In Context #31,po box 11470,bainbridge is.,WA,98110,206-842-0216
If some messenger were to come to us with the offer that death should be
overcome, but with the one INSEPARABLE condition that birth should also
cease; if the existing generation were given the chance to live forever,
but on the clear understanding that never again would there be a child,
or a youth, or first love, achievements; ourselves for always and never
any others - could the answer be in doubt?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:50:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >I see, the GIFT that has a small footprint stating that one has to
> >accept certain rules. Once, and for all, this is *not* a free gift.
> >If this was the case, the atheist would get a *free salvation* and
> >receive eternal life, without selling his/her soul to a particular
> >brand of Christianity. 
 
>   the forgiveness is free and undeserved, accepting jesus has costs.
> like enduring the scorn of skeptics in here.  :)

...in other words there ain't no such thing as free salvation - TANSTAFS.

Sorry, but I've seen the myth of free salvation with the sub sentence
"...and you need to...". It reminds me of the hidden costs when you
buy cars in US.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:33:42 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>Oh, excuse me. How can I be so evil as to deny your most holy exegesis. Of
>course I should have known that my ideas are vile and evil and blantant
>assertion and insult unsupported by scripture such as Luke 14:26 whereas
>your ideas are pure and holy exegesis whether supported by scripture or not.
>How blind of me not to see that, your most holyness. May I kiss your holy
>feet?

Given this last posting it is clear that:

  1. You refuse to acknowledge that I've answered you questions;

  2. You continually insult me with with stuff like this, when I point
     out honest disagreements;

  3. You continue to make incorrect claims about what I believe when I have 
     told you what I believe

I'm not going to continue this thread.  I don't have time to beat my head
on a wall...

 -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: The problem of evil
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:28:59 GMT
Organization: Aha!, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Steve Adams) writes:

          Clearly evil was created by God, along with everything
	  else.  It is a ...

AHA! This is what I was waiting for :) This seems to contradict
your earlier message (Article 66640 in my rn) of:

          God simply CANNOT be responsible for evil.  If he is,
	  then the whole of the bible is false.  I refuse to
	  accept that.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Organization: we don't need no water, let it burn-yo!
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:00:36 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.                          

All the voices heard in the Garden of Eden are actually from Eve, she was
created "smarter" and more "intuitive" and more "aware" than Adam and she
knew how to throw her voice. She also knew that Adam, being man, had a
fragile male ego. Eve corrrectly perceived that human being was being
created and birth or separtion or expulsion from the Garden or Edenical Womb
was inevitable. She also knew that human beings already had the knowledge
of good and bad, but did not realize it. So she concocted the whole story and
convinced Adam with her ingenuity and ventriloquist abilities, not to mention
her healthy pair of lungs and ample butt. Basically Adam never really had a
clue of what was going on, he was still in a honeymooner's bliss. And the
rest is herstory, so now you know ... the rest ... of the story. Good Day!
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:14:34 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Paul Harvey) writes:

<about talking serpents>
 
                   ...Maybe Eve correctly weighed the pluses and minuses
 of it all and decided to eat and then deducing that she would be born or
 thrown out for this decision, she offered some to Adam also, since she knew
 she would need him also, and she knew that Adam would not question if she
 approached in the correct manner, in the nude.

But also, once Eve had eaten of the fruit, and Adam had not yet
eaten, Eve may have had Knowledge, but Adam did not yet, so the
nudity bit wouldn't have affected him yet. In any event, if
you were Adam, and Eve had just eaten from the fruit, what other
choice would you have but to eat also? The alternative would
be to "be alone" forever?

Dano


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:35:52 GMT

In article <25720@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.005544.24802@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes...
>>In article <25703@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>>>"The measureable impact humans have had on their environment" is a sad
>>>fact of life and not a statement of a scientific law or principle.
>> 
>>This is _not_ a sad fact of life, any more than humans are the 'pinnacle'
>>of evolution.
>
>Well excuse me for having an opinion.  I *am* sad about it.  Now what?
>And who said anything about evolutionary pinnacles? 
>
>>Humans, like many other species, change their environment.  Humans,
>>unlike any other species in history, are starting to recognize that
>>change and take steps (however tentative) to mitigate it.
>
>So it seems that I am not the only one who is upset with the situation.
>Why do you feel the need to justify our past abuses in the very same breath
>that you acknowledge that we're finally getting around to fixing the mess?

Perhaps it is because I live in Boulder, or perhaps it is because I
work at NOAA,...

... but I've heard plenty of people who condemn (no other word) 
modern society for its "crimes against nature" while gleefully ignorant
of previous kill-offs, natural and manmade.  They also don't understand
why scientists actually want to understand (or at least measure) what's
happening -- they simply say "DO SOMETHING, DAMN IT!"

The most extreme version want us to return to the stone age, blithely
unconcerned that we probably did more damage in our prehistory than
the industrial age.

For instance: compare the species killed since the last ice age (saber-
tooth tigers, mammoths, lions (in Europe), great bears, the horse in
the Americas (if not the horse, some large mammal was killed off by
humans in the Americas in prehistory), etc.... to the effort being spent
keeping many species alive today.

Nobody is claiming (outside of Bushites) that we don't have problems.
But they will _not_ get fixed by indulging in a guilt-trip and doing
the first thing that pops into our heads.

>Are you one of those Bush speech writers...

Slander!

Besides I got a good laugh (like 90% of the mountainous west) when the
Feds finally got around to holding public hearings on reintroducing the
wolf to Yellowstone... only to be told that there was a verified wolf
sighting in the park.

It's not a pack (instead, he (?) is an 'outrider') but that suggests
population pressure will soon introduce full packs.

Now if only we could introduce wolves to Boulder.  Perhaps the wolves
and the mountain lions could do something about our lawn rat (deer)
infestation.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:17:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug28.225444.24490@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) wrote:
> (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
> >This summarizes quite well my Heidegger influenced view that 
> >every individual models his world view, and there are *no* right
> >or wrong world views, just different.
 
> No right or wrong implies a moral equivalence.
> Would you then say that say Ghandi's world view was no more "right"
> than Hitler's world view?  If not, then there is a higher standard with
> which you are comparing both views -- a "rightness" standard, perhaps? 

Good question! Would you then state that Gandhi's world view is wrong
because it wasn't Christian? There is actually a standard we could
compare to, common sense. Killing people is not common sense,
because people could create medicines that help other people, or start
companies that create jobs and happiness.

Keeping a country slaved by another one is not common sense, because
people will never accept the situation that their culture is controlled
by another one.

I could find a lot of "higher standards" that are based on common
sense instead of a religious ideal. The best one, the one that
have created democracy and stability in this world is "All men
are created equal". It does not have a connection to a religion,
exactly. It is questionable if it has a real common sense connection,
however looking at parallel processor systems I do think people realize
that collaboration ends up with better performance.

This has nothing to do with world views per se, more with if world
views are practical or not.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:29:40 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Steve Adams) wrote in reply to Paal Sternberg:

   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
 
I replied:

  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. . .

Steve replies:
 
 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.
 
So, you admit there is evil in the world* (even if it was to
allow humans 'free choice') and you admit that god created "everything" 

This seems to contradict your earlier statement:

   Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it...

This is the point Paal Berg was apparently trying to make.

--
Dano

*("Dr. Nancy's Sweetie" makes an interesting point in this regard)
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:35:22 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug27.172948.564@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.132052.23288@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>> 
> 
> Absolutely not!  One of the most basic beliefs in Christianity is freedom
> of choice. That is why in the nations which have (or had) a Christian
> heritage we have freedom of religion. 

Yowza! Freedom of religion is a pretty recent thing in the history of 
Christian political life. We all know how tolerant the medieval Catholic
church was of other religious traditions. (i.e. the Crusades, the non-stop
persecution of Jews, the obliteration of the Albigenses, et al). 

And of course, the 100 years of bloody warfare that followed the 
Reformation is another example of Christian tolerance, not to mention
the Tudor persecutions, revocation of the edict of Nantes, etc. etc...

Seems to me freedom of religion as a political principle came out of the 
emerging humanist tradition in the 18th century...does this sound right?

Besides, freedom of religion exists in many countries without a Christian
heritage. India, Japan, etc.

> 
> There's an Islamic dude out there who might want to tell us why it is
> illegal in many Islamic countries to covert to another religion.
 
*laugh*  Why was it that converting to another religion would have got you
executed/persecuted in most Christian countries for the first 1,500 years of 
Christian rule?

>                                                                       ___
> Bill Rea                                                             (o o)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

In search of the Deus Absconditus

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:19:19 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
>> Ok.  My hypothesis (and it's only that) is that given truly free will, and
>> the real, logical possibility of evil being actualized, someone, somewhere
>> will commit an 'evil' act at some point.  Granted, you won't do the things
>> you said, but what about some lesser 'evil'?  Like say, telling a lie.  Or
>> getting too much change and not returning it.  Or taking the name of God in
>> vain.  Or calling someone a name.  Or cheating on your taxes? I'm not accusing 
>> you of anything, just pointing out that 'evil' is anything which separates
>> us from God (ie == sin).

>[Apoligies that I cut out the rest of this email, I do think that 
>readers of t.r.m prefer short and to the point discussion].
No problem.  I'm pleasently surprised that someone other than Sean is
actually reading what I write.

>Anyway, I still interested to know your point of if free will implies
>sinning, and if God has free will, how did he achieve this gift if
>the ground rules are based on sinning. Someone as powerful as God
>must have sinned as well, or even God, in order create this precious
>feature.

The simple, concise answer is that God is perfect while we are not.  It is
not possible for God to sin (ie how can he work against his own will or
seperate himself from himself)?

 -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: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:00:49 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

I'm not sure if the theme has been posted - I checked backwards and
didn't seem to find anything, so I wanted to put in my thoughts.

The theme of Christianity is Jesus the Christ - his fortelling, life, 
works, Deity, death for our sin payment, bodily resurrection, assention, 
and future return.  As the Apostle Paul put it in I Cor 15, for without 
Christ and his resurection we (Christians) are of all men most miserable.

There is a lot of side issues, but the above is the essence.  We are
encouraged to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.  We
are predestined to be conformed into the likeness of Jesus the Christ.
Through Jesus we have been given everything we need for life and godliness.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism