HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: adam and eve
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 22:00:03 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>> Then why did he make such a tree and put it there? To test Adam and
>> Eve's faith? Doesn't God's desire for them to not eat from it
>> symbolize a desire to keep them from seeking knowledge?
 
>He put it there so that they could choose to follow Him or not.
 
A violation of one rule does not a rebellion make. No matter how
meaningless the rule, or how easy it is to obey, sometimes a fallible
human can do the wrong thing. Not out of malice or out of
disgruntlement, but just as a mistake. God's reaction is, I feel,
somewhat extreme. Like shooting people for jaywalking.
 
God MUST have known the serpent was there, and it should have occured to
him that somebody as silver-tongued as Satan is supposed to be should
have no trouble in wooing an unsuspecting human.
 
>It may symbolize a desire to keep them from seeking the knowledge of
>good and evil, but I wouldn't generalize that to all knowledge.
 
No, but it was a cornerstone to the construction of civilization.
Without a basic knowledge of right and wrong, a society cannot
function, and anarchy will abound.
 
>> Does God ever come out and announce himself as the Supreme Ruler to
>> them? She had no reason to trust God's word over anyone else's.
 
>Of the four "participants" in Eden, none questioned God's identity.
 
As far as we know, anyway. The Bible is wonderfully free of details,
leaving events wide open to interpretation.
 
>If God had not given Adam and Eve a command they would not have had
>free will with respect to obeying God.  In fact, without a command,
>they could neither obey nor disobey.
 
So why is the ability to ignore orders a necessary requirement of free
will? (Oops! Did I say "why"? Sorry! :) )
 
>The whole point of Jesus dieing on the cross was that His death did
>please God.  (I can hear the "why"s already :-)
 
I'll spare you :) God sounds like Macheivelli (sp?)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: That sin thing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:12:55 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>>> A perfect being can posses infinite capabilities and still be
>>> constrained from doing certain things.
 
>> Bull :)
 
>Ah, yes.  The perfectly logical refutation.  :-)
 
Gimmie a break, Jim. You're doing the same thing that was so aggravating
about arguing with Chris Spray. You ignore every relevant point I make
in a post, and then jump on the one flippant comment I make. :)
 
And that comment was in response to what I felt was a particularly silly
statement, by the way. I mean, talk about a non-sequitur! :)
 
But if you wanna hash this one out, I guess we can. Could you maybe
explain to me how a being can be at once capable of everything and prevented
from some things?
 
Wait, this is drifting towards a logic discussion, isn't it? :) You said
to someone yesterday that you felt certain things couldn't be explained
by logic. As long as you're educating my befuddled, logical brain, could
you also give me an example of something that is explained by emotion?



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:00:20 GMT

In article <4494.29ECC392@umagic.FIDONET.ORG> Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray) writes:
>LH> to redirect pagan celebrations to christian ones. Pagan symbols are the
>LH>
>LH> "christmas" tree, holly wreathes, candles (fire), yule logs, etc. 
>
>I have to jump in here.  To the Christian, the Christmas tree represents 
>the Father.....
>

	Only because early Christians needed to put a Christian slant on
these kind of Pagan symbols.  The Christmas tree itself only started to be
widely seen as part of the "Christmas tradition" about a century ago.
-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:36:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.194309.5871@b11.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) writes:
> Several days ago, someone wrote to the effect:
> 
> "He is a fundie, and I don't believe him."  Anyway, that is the gist of
> what I remember.  I wish I had the article.
> 
> So, my questions are:
> 
> What is a fundie (= fundamentalist)?  

Someone who unquestionly accepts ideas and beliefs from others or from books
with critical examination, study of alternatives, and even glorifies this
unreasoning acceptance with the name "faith".

> If being a fundie is bad ...

It is. Terrible. An abrogation of your basic responsibility to think and
use reason - the two highest achievements of the human species.

> ... how do I keep from being a fundie?

Start by using your brain - examine things with reason. Don't accept things
told you by others without question, especially if they don't seem to relate
to everything else around you, or the way you really feel inside.

> Are all TV evangelists fundies?

Yes. Among the worst. Actually, many are simply out for big bucks, and don't
really swallow all the crap they espouse, but they sure want YOU to.

> Are fundies always jumping up and down, and shouting at others?

No, sometimes they fake the ability to cure illness by laying on of hands, bilk
elderly ladies out of their life's savings, and do other unsavory things.

> Some people get really excited about certain things, and their actions
> are extreme.  Two examples: a fan at a football game, and a Christian.
> Both, in the heat of a moment, may do things that others (who are
> uninvolved at the time) think are quite pecuilar.

Not really pecuilar, more evil, beneath contempt and totally devoid of all
higher mental processes (both fundies and football fans....) :-)

>  - Les
> 
> -- 
> Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
> Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester

Larry "that clarify it for you?" Hughes




Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: pagan holidays
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:59:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.143223.5455@b11.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) writes:
> In article <4487.29EBD489@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> |> Lawrence Hughes says:
> |> >Date    Celtic Name                     Modern          Christianized
> |>  
> |> >Feb 2   Imbolg                          -------         Candelmas
> |>                                          ^^^^^^^
> |>  
> |> I don't know the origin, but is it mere coincidence that this is also
> |> Groundhog's Day? :) If "Imbolg" is pronounced like it is spelled, then
> |> it sounds a little like "groundhog"...
> 
> I don't know anything about Imbolg, but if you were to make a composite
> calendar of all the holidays of every country in the world, I think that
> more than one or two would fall coincident (holidays, not countries).  :-)
> 
>  - Les


It is widely acknowledged that the placement of christian holidays was no
mere coincidence with pagan ones - there is documentation both inside and
outside the church to the effect that this was a concerted attempt to
redirect the common people's faith away from their native religion to the
new foreign one. Most of them even have the trappings of the earlier pagan
holidays (which trappings probably mystify most christians, as the bunnies
and eggs were blowing Chris' mind), specifically for the purpose of supressing
a competitor religion. Native religions have historically been heavily
supressed (to the point of burning living believers of Wicca in Salem)
by the christian church. 

Larry Hughes

Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:05:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.172333.17874@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.164917.28618@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr7.164444.13814@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com writes:
>|> >Whoa there!  Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
>|> >regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify today),
>|> >you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for facts that
>|> >can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?  What does
>|> >it say about historical events?
>|> 
>|> 	What it says about human nature is not facts, its opinion,  there is
>|> a difference,  many things we do now would have been "miraculous" to the
>|> writers of the bible.
>
>....
>
>|> 	Since it was written so long ago,  *anything* it says is not 
>|> verfiable in any sense that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
>
>You're way too general here.  The Bible says that Israel was conquered
>by Assyria and Judah was conquered by Babylon, are you saying that those
>statements are not verifiable?  The Bible says that Jews lived in the
>city of Jerusalem 2000 years ago, that's not verifiable either?

	Ok,  I can accept that the Bible has some accurate historical 
information,  just as The Illiad has accurate historical information,
that doesn't mean that everything its says is true,  particularly when
it strays from presenting verifiable historical facts. 
>
>If so, we must dismiss any evidence or any report of any kind about
>any event that happened very long ago.
>
>|> 	Just how do you propose to *verify* things written by/witnessed
>|> by people who've been dead for several thousand years ?,  I certainly wouldn't
>|> want to convict anyone on it.
>
>Much, if not most, of what the Bible presents as "current events" has
>been verified by archeology.  True the Bible goes into finer detail than
>archeology could ever manage.

	Or elaborates on the truth !
>
>
>I'll offer you the same challenge I offered Christian Walters.  YOU
>try to define miracle.
>

	As you may have guessed by I'm extremely sceptical about miracles,
I don't accept the premise that a Miracle can occur.  What you might define
as a miracle I would define as something we don't *currently* have a rational
explanation for. However where you might decide this was evidence for a
"Supreme Being",  I would regard it as evidence that we have an imperfect
understanding of how things work.

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: re: That sin thing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:09:52 GMT

In article <4486.29EBD486@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> >Similar perhaps, but certainly not identical.  The relationship between
|> >God and man is often compared to the parent-child relationship. My
|> >relationship with my daughter is similar, but certainly not identical
|> >to her relationship with other 1.5 year olds.
|>  
|> I don't know. Do you get anything from your relationship with your
|> daughter? I assume you do. Do the two of you have any needs that are
|> filled by the other? Y'see, I don't think this is possible with a being
|> capable of everything. What do we provide him? What needs of his do we
|> fill?

How about companionship?  Perhaps God has a need to be loved.  Perhaps
God likes a challenge, so He challenged Himself with the task of creating
imperfect beings that would be able to relate to him.  The Bible says that
mankind's purpose is to bring pleasure to God.

|> The adjective "infinite" is very powerful. We're not able to get
|> our minds truly behind what that means. How can we have a relationship
|> with something like that?

We aren't able to fully understand God.  My daughter isn't able to fully
understand me.  While we're at it, I don't fully understand my wife.
Yet the relationships exist.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: pagan holidays
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:32:23 GMT

In article <4487.29EBD489@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Lawrence Hughes says:
|> >Date    Celtic Name                     Modern          Christianized
|>  
|> >Feb 2   Imbolg                          -------         Candelmas
|>                                          ^^^^^^^
|>  
|> I don't know the origin, but is it mere coincidence that this is also
|> Groundhog's Day? :) If "Imbolg" is pronounced like it is spelled, then
|> it sounds a little like "groundhog"...

I don't know anything about Imbolg, but if you were to make a composite
calendar of all the holidays of every country in the world, I think that
more than one or two would fall coincident (holidays, not countries).  :-)

 - Les
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 09:47:51 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jeff Hyche says:
>> If I remember right, Jesus did. :) Confucius, I think, had a good
>> saying: to your friends, give love - to your enemies, give justice. I
>> think Confucius would have liked Clint Eastwood. :)
 
>Now this is something I think we can learn from the bible.  Bring
>back a little biblical justice:)
 
Really. When's the last time we had a good public stoning? :) And
crucifixions. Kind of a sloppy way to kill someone, but you can't beat
it for crowd-gathering potential :) If we'd charge a fee for admission,
we could double state and local revenues. Maybe that's why they don't
mention any economic recessions in the Bible :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: That sin thing
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:55:33 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>> Part of it may be the word "infinite." Christians typically view God
>> as a being that encompasses all things except evil. Well, if you say
>> that God will do no evil, then you are placing a parameter on an
>> infinite being, thus rendering him finite.
 
>Oops, you forgot to be "logical" here.
 
I never "forget" to be logical. At times, my logic may be faulty,
though. Or I may choose to ignore it :) But I never neglect to use it..
 
>Please explain why something that is bounded by parameters cannot be
>considered "infinite".
 
"This is my back yard, which is infinite. It runs off infinitely in all
directions. Well, at least until you hit the fence."
 
>I am sure you recognize that an infinite number of points can be found
>in a finite area.  To demonstrate this fact, draw a circle on a piece
>of paper and count how many points it contains. Remember plane geometry
>from the seventh grade?  :-)
 
Not exactly the same thing. A circle is still bound. The best analogy
you can draw from this is that God is capable of doing an infinite
amount of good deeds. But he's still bounded from other types of
activity.
 
>A perfect being can posses infinite capabilities and still be
>constrained from doing certain things.
 
Bull :)
 
>You seem to be asking the old "Can God make a rock so big that he
>cannot lift it?" question.  For answers to questions like this, I would
>suggest that you just ask Him.  :-)
 
You've made that suggestion before :) I don't think I have his number.
Or maybe I do, and he doesn't return my calls :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: presto!random@uunet.uu.net
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:12:12 CST
Organization: I'm Just Me.

In article <1992Apr6.171710.16380@infonode.ingr.com>, James B. Reed writes:

> 
> Pick a topic, let's get going.  However, if you want to start a
> flame-fest with me, you'll be disappointed.

Not in this to start a flame-fest.  Just a debate, your belief
against my science.  If you try to run this into a flame-fest,
you will find my sorly lacking to carry on.

--
"If winning is not              // Jeff Hyche           
 important, then            \\ //  UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!random
 why keep score?" Lt. Worf   \X/   GEnie: J.HYCHE
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:11:17 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jeff Hyche says:
>>Also, I don't know a lot about sonics, but wouldn't they tend to
>>shatter a stone wall, instead of knocking them down "quite flat"?
 
>A sonic force on stone wall would pulverize it.
 
That's what I thought. Seems I saw that on a Star Trek episode :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:25:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.183655.955@b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
|> China (ignore the current, flash in the pan, communist fad - it will pass soon)

I hope you're right about that.

|> is the home of the world's oldest continuous and IMHO most advanced and
|> refined culture - ignoring technology for the moment (admittedly hard for most
|> westerners to do, since that is our only good card) imagine what our culture
|> will be like in a few thousand years.... be very careful about applying
|> western assumptions and standards to this culture.

I personally can't imagine what any culture will be like even a few hundred
years from now.

The isolation between Chinese and western culture through the centuries is
both interesting and unfortunate.  I think it has been partly due to travel
difficulties (at least until recent times) and partly due to choice.

|> > The Old Testament Jews were God's chosen people.  (I'll beg the question
|> > on what that means for Jews today :-)  God's intent and instructions for
|> > them was that they were to be an example to the nations of the world
|> > (similar to His instructions to Christians today).  They got self-righteous
|> > about it (similar to the reactions of many Christians today).
|> 
|> So, today's christians are about to lose his favor too?

I hope not.  At least on the grand scale.  I admit that there are far too
many who are not pleasing God.

|> > When Jesus
|> > came, they failed to recognize Him as the Messiah they were expecting
|> > (they were expecting the wrong thing).  Since Jesus was rejected by
|> > the chosen people, that opened the door (so to speak) for the rest of us.
|> 
|> If I were a Jew, I would be quite insulted by your attitude. I assume you are
|> aware that in their opinion, christians have squandered THEIR immortal souls
|> by following a false prophet, before the "real" messiah came...

I am aware of that.  Moslems would agree that Christians are wrong.
I don't feel insulted by their attitudes though.

|> Sorry - never have bought the 1=3 line... it's really ok to have multiple
|> gods if that's what you want, but I consider it bunk to worship multiple gods
|> and then slaughter hordes of non-belivers just because they won't worship
|> "one god". If you can't explain it, you probably don't really believe it
|> yourself - it isn't real complicated.... just saying that it is "somehow"
|> so doesn't help your credibility in any way. 

See my "why" post (sometime in the next few days) for an example of trying
to explain something that isn't real complicated.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: That sin question
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:38:57 GMT

In article <4405.29E36143@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Ah, we've struck another one of my snags with Christianity. This notion
|> that all humans are going to sin. If we've fallen short of God's
|> standards simply on the basis of being born human, then either God made
|> substandard parts or he allowed defects to creep in.

Another difficult point to make, but I'll give it a try :-).

Being born human does not force us (or doom us) to fall short of God's
standards.  It provides us the choice to either "do the right thing"
or rebel.  Everyone at some point (or many points) in their life chooses
to sin.  Haven't you every done something that you knew wasn't right?
(Don't answer that :-).

Let me correct that last paragraph.  There has been one person who did not
choose to sin, Jesus.  By living a perfect life, He was the proof by example
that being human does not "force" a person to sin.

|> The position that
|> we're all supposed to apologize or atone for these "God guaranteed sins"
|> strikes me as odd, to say the least.

Apologize perhaps, but we are not capable of atoning for our sins.
By "atone" I mean to make things OK with God.  By sinning or rebelling
we have shown ourselves flawed, and being flawed we are incapable of
making things OK.  By taking our sins on Himself and willingly dieing
on the cross, Jesus did what was necessary to satisfy God's requirements.

No, I don't understand how Jesus' death did that.  No, I don't know why
God would choose to create such a master plan for the world.

|> My definition of miracle is quite useless for any debate. It's simple:
|> an event occuring by design outside of the laws of nature.

Your choice of the word "design" is interesting.  It makes it impossible
to declare an event a miracle until we can determine the intentions of
the <whatever> that caused the event.  It also still requires us to fully
determine the laws of nature.  Oh, well :-).

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |