HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:43:45 GMT

In article <fSwTEfg@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.191909.4387@cs.yale.edu> 
>>YHWH actually means something like "He who creates"
>
>No, it doesn't mean anything,
Ratshit. Go read a textbook on Hebrew Bible. You clearly don't understand
anything about this issue.

> it is a marker for He whose name is not
>to be pronounced, He who said, "I am that I am".
Yes, that's right, but it is most certainly a name.
"I am that I am" is a pun, you dolt. In Hebrew, it's something like
"eh yeh aser eh yeh".
The entire exchange goes something like:
"Who are you? I am that I am. But who shall I say has sent me. Tell
them I am (eh yeh) has sent you. ..." eh yeh is a pun on Yahweh.
In fact, the source is linking it to the verb to be.
The J source is quite clear that YHWH is a name. 

> When reading scripture,
>one would say, the Lord.
This is a much later development. The early Yahwists do not appear to have
had any qualms about pronouncing the name. Later on, vowel marks are
added to indicate that it is to be pronounced Adonai(Lord) or Elohim
(God). YHWH is no less a name than Baal or Marduk.

> The whole YHWH, Yahweh, JHWH, Jahweh, Jehovah
>is one gigantic misunderstanding of Judaism.
In a word, bullshit.
 
> It is a symbol, not a
>word. The transcendent is transcendent of name.

Mystical bullshit. You clearly have no clue of what you speak, sir.
-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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:10:52 GMT

In article <68149@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep14.161647.7312@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <68019@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}>}Let me ask you this question, Mr. Meritt, HOW HOW HOW do you know the
}>}end came, since according to you all that saw it have left?  Obviously,
}>}you lump yourself into the unworthy bunch, since you are still here.
}>
}>I did it myself.  I'm God.  Didn't you know that?  If you don't agree, I
}>extend to you the same challenge as last year: prove I'm not.
}
}Make the pencil on my office table write your name on the yellow pad
}on top of my printer.  The pad is blank and the pencil is sharp and has 
}an eraser, in case you make a mistake.  You are claiming to be an all
}powerful god, aren't you?

Sorry, but I don't do parlor tricks any wore than that upstart faker Yahweh.
Don't you know that you are not support to tempt god?


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15928 alt.atheism:16834
From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 9 Sep 1992 09:12:08 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Sep08.024227.482@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <18grqmINN58t@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>
>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>>Nothing wrong with selfishness, but I think that there is some benefit
>>in taking a longer term more enlightened approach to it.  Overpopulation
>>may not affect you today (I think it does) but you ought to be a little
>>worried about what it might do to you tommorrow.
>>
>>Me:
>>Do you honestly think the U.S. has to worry about overpopulation?  The only
>>problem is 3rd world environmental damage.  Plus, like I said, that damage is
>>nothing compared to the damage done by the U.S. to the environment.
>
>I can't make any sense out of this.  What do you think the results of
>overpopulation are, if not excessive damage to the environment?  If you
>consider the 3rd world to be overpopulated because of environmental
>damage, why would you not think the same of the U.S.?

Just because the U.S. is hurting the environment doesn't mean we're
overpopulated.  I assume that was what you were trying to say; your line of
thought wasn't clear.

>
>And yes, even if we North Americans were not big contributors to trashing
>the environment, we should still be very worried about what is happening
>in other parts of the world.  For example, it doesn't matter who does
>the pumping of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere -- global
>warming will affect us all.  Not only that, but as long as there is such
>a skewed distribution of wealth in the world, and as long as there are
>people who do not have their basic needs met, none of us will be secure.
>Sorry if that sounds like pinko propaganda, but it happens to be true.


It isn't true anymore.  The only type of class revolution the U.S. will have to
deal with is an internal one.


>--
>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.


Jon Newton
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:50:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.715876629@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >However you must agree on my statement that humans are capable of 
> >doing things (sinning) God is not capable of. Is this a case of
> >a problem with the Christian notion of omnipotence?
> 
> Well, that depends. ;-)  If by omnipotence, we say 'can do anything', then
> sure.  But if by omnipotence we say 'can do anything, within the bounds of
> logical possibilities', then no.  In other words, I don't believe that it
> is logically possible to create a 'square circle' or 'a rock so big He
> can't lift it.'  Similarly, it is logically impossible for God to act
> against His own interests.

> I think we're playing with definitions...;-)

Yes, I think we do, and actually I deliberately tried to move the 
discussion to this point. Where I could bravely state that:
HUMANS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT OMNIPOTENCE IMPLIES.

So why then use the notion to define the godlike qualities, when
we can't even figure this out with our own brains? It's like using
a really nice buzz word at a cocktail party, such as meta-evolution,
without even knowing what it really implies.

It also means that when we humans map our concept of omnipotence
on possible God candidates, they might be true, or most likely not.
Thus I'm very skeptical to most of the Christian doctrine of God.

If there's a God (note I'm agnostic) this being is so alien that
it's not worth describing it. If we are able to describe this being,
even partly, then the entity is no God.

Kent
 
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist) 
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:28:02 GMT


hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>> 
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>If God created the universe, who created God?
>> 
>> 
>> This question seems to pop up frequently. Here goes ...
>> 
>> The Bible makes claims that point toward the transcendence of God, that  
>> he exists in dimensions apart from our experience. One of those claims is
>> of his existence "prior to" or "apart from" the existence of the universe. 
>
>[...explanation of God's transcendence deleted...]
>            
>I guess the point of this question is that it causes us to recognize that
>"God" is not really any kind of answer to mystery. The universe is in no
>way more understandable with God's existence assumed. We still have no
>ultimate answers. "Who created God?" "No one - he is transcendent of time,
>has no beginning, etc."  "Why is God there, then?" "Well, he just IS."
>"Yeah, but WHY?"   "Errr...."

I was not attempting to solve the mystery, or answer the WHY questions 
about God, only to show the concept of a begining is meaningless for a 
being existing in multiple time dimensions. Other difficulties remain.
The only way we could know the WHY questions about such a being would be
for him to communicate with us in some fashion.

>> The Christian concept of God includes the idea of "self-existence", that the
>> very power of being rests in him. 
>
>Of course, we all know the REAL answer to the question "who created God?" :)

Mr. First Cause ??  :)


Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:07:46 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>In article <adams.716140467@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>>An alternative account of suffering is that it is simply a
>>>modality of experience that arises from our essential
>>>inability to grasp and control the content of that
>>>experience. 
>>This is fine for natural evil, I think.  Hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.  But
>>what about moral evil.  If we eliminate any god from the picture, where
>>does moral evil come from??  How is it defined?  How does it arise?

>Moral evil is defined by the society you live in.
[examples of change in 'evil' deleted]
This doesn't explain how it arises....all it does is explain how it
mutates.  Where did it COME from?  Why are people evil?  Take Stalin or
Hitler...what made them evil?

>Actually, I think it is easier to talk about where moral evil comes
>from if you don't have a god. With a god, you start getting into
>questions like, "Why does this supposedly benevolent god allow
>evil to exist in our world? And don't say we brought it on ourselves
>because god created us and knew full well what kind of trouble we
>would get ourselves into."
That's true.  God had advance knowledge.  If you've looked at all at the
coversations I've had with Sean Hartigan, you'll know I recognize this, but
still maintain that evil was actualized by man, even though it was created
(or at least the logical possibility of evil) by God.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: centry@athena.mit.edu (Jae H Nam)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:50:47 GMT

	I dunno.  Does it matter if he's rich or poor?  It's just important
that he or she is a good person.  I think...?
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:13:15 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.112101.12834@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
>Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
>Date: 4 Sep 92 11:21:01 GMT

>In article <1992Sep3.230154.8103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>> First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
>> faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
>>
>> I don't recall any posts where a non-Christian relates a wholistic assurance
>> in their belief (i.e. through all aspects of human thought, including reason,
>> emotion, experience, gut feelings, etc, etc.).  None who are as blatantly
>> stubborn about their position. :-)  Could it be that they are not as sure?
>> They base their beliefs only on reason and intellectual feasability, whereas
>> the Christian will acknowledge that reason is an issue, but by far not the
>> sum total of religious experience.  There are some on the other end as well.
>>
>> John M.

>I don't believe this. Go and read soc.religion.islam for a while.

>And open your eyes first; it may help.

>Tears

>Simon
>-- 
>Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
>Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
>University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
>Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK

Nobody ever relies on either faith or reason exclusively.  I have yet to see 
any writing on this subject from Aquinas to the present that does not at 
some point assume this either/or exclusivity. It takes a little faith to 
accept that human reason can tell you anything, and a little reason even to 
be able to exercise any faith in something. The whole problem here (IMO) is 
one of emphasis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:17:02 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
: In article <Bu24Hp.1J4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
: >The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
: >give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
: >	-- Abraham Lincoln
: 
: Could you give the context in which Lincoln said this - PLEASE.

Sorry, I don't have it either.  But I thought I might add that according
to a world almanac I have, Lincoln, Jefferson, and A. Johnson (I think it
was Johnson but maybe it was Jackson) were the only presidents that didn't 
declare a religion.  This was interesting because a few sentences earlier,
they claimed that all the presidents had been white Christian males.  
Maybe this is where Geo. Bush gets his justification about requiring 
presidents to be Christians. :-)

-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:21:21 GMT

<MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <adams.716310076@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>>
>>Ok.  Fine.  Where does good come from?  Is there really any such thing as
>>good or evil???  If so, where did they come from?

>Might be. I think of what's good or bad for me...but I don't personify
>them. To me, they're just words which don't come from anywhere. Just
>terms I use since they're familiar to most.

Ok, then fine.  Pick you own words.  You're dodging the question!  Where
exactly did your concept come from?

>>Hmm.  'Snickering' at the Bible isn't new, and obviously you haven't paid
>>much attention to other things I've written on that subject...

>Oh, "obviously," or I'd be...a born-again christian? Well, you either
>didn't get the joke, or you have a vested interest in not liking it...

This set of sentences PROVES that you haven't read what I've written on the
subject.  I have NEVER claimed that you would be a born again Christian.  I
myself question the bible in some ways...so your claimed attempt at humor 
failed...not that you were kidding.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason     
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:18 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

SG>Well, some of us, me included, find the very concept of a supreme
SG>being who request, nay, DEMANDS, ultimate servitude from his subjects
SG>offensive in the extreme.  Why does your god require this of you?

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


Everyone serves someone. God serves His devotees by reciprocating with
them in loving relationships. God also serves those who don't like Him:
even atheists depend on God to maintain the universal stability so that
they can pursue their impossible dream of independence from Him.
Atheists also serve others, if only to earn a living.
Nobody anywhere in existence is exempt from servitude. Service is the
eternal function of all living beings.
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep3.224927.6949@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> 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.
>

I dont mean to intrude into your discussion. I am just curious.
How do you know what God knows ?

> John M.
> 

RKP
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:59:33 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep5.003711.1776@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.224927.6949@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> 
>> 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.
>>
>
>I dont mean to intrude into your discussion. I am just curious.
>How do you know what God knows ?

Because the above is a conviction from God's Holy Spirit living in me.

>> John M.
>> 
>
>RKP
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:41:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715470718@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik writes:
> >Stephen Buckley wrote:
> >>   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.
> 
>   well accepting it is free, but enduring the scorn of others is 
> worth the fruit.  don't think it's not.

So we finally agree that there's no such thing as a free gift concerning
salvation. You agree yourself that you had to pay a special price -
scorn of others. I would add to this list other things are comes with
the free gift:

* acceptance of Jesus as the way to salvation
* acceptance of a good deal of Jewish religious tradition
* acceptance of Pauli ideas about modern Christianity
* add to this acceptance of a known Christianic norm, as a special
Christian sect or church
* acceptance of certain moral values

As we see, there's this small footprint that actually expands to
cover a lot of things you have to accept. So the concept of 
free gift is on the same level as Bush promising tax breaks
while children in California don't get pencils and papers when
they go to school this autumn.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean: TESTIMONY CALLOUT!
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:34:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <gate.H86NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) wrote:
> This is not correct. The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of
> the Lord, no one can approach Him or please Him.

I think this is a good example of "East and West, and they will never
meet". I belong to the Western society, where the issue of man 
not being in service of any master is one of the key revolutions
in modern time. It is nowadays also part of a person's world
view.

Thus I would never accept a slave-master relationship between
a god and a human. This was the norm 1000 years ago, this is no
longer the social norm.

Kent                                                             

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:52:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715475894@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik writes:
> >Well, we both agree that Satan is the ultimate deceiver. He could show
> >up as a friendly spirit, or even as Jesus. And would lead people to
> >disaster. This is the issue I wanted to point out, if you believe
> >in Satan and spirits that twist people's minds, you have to also
> >accept the fact that he has done it to you as well.
> 
>   well this is exactly my point.  and it's the reason why i object to 
> any spiritual interference on the conscious level, and why i no longer
> meditate, trip our or by any other means enter altered state of 
> consciousness where this manifests.

So you are so open minded you would even accept the Gnostic view
that the Great Deceiver created a false picture of the fall of man,
including creating false religions? If you accept the interference
of spirits on one level, you have to also accept that these spirits
could have twisted the minds of religious leaders.
 
> >Not in the beginning. Anyway, people convert to false religions as well
> >without the need of any evidence. Christianity is not different in this
> >sense.
 
>   yeah, a lot of false religions depend, tho, on numbing a person's
> critical capacity to internal inconsistencies in theology/philosohy
> and to a person's instincts against the dogma.  christianity can stand
> up to open-minded prayerful criticism of a highly intellectual sort.

I'm sure then that we could discuss intellectually the implications
of Satan creating Christianity as a way to lead people to self destruction!

Cheers!
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins