HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:05:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug27.114320.19643@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
> >I would like to know if this is really the case -- do JWs believe
> >that there was never any rain on Earth before the Flood? This is 
> >getting more and more crazy... This issue opens a huge new can
> >of worms, all crawling all over the JW logic.
> 
> 	Gen. 2:6

I have my bible back home, but is this an official statement that 
Earth didn't get any rain until the flood? If so, sigh, gosh...

Where should we start? For instance with the Grand Canyon. Or you
are a Finn, so you should now about the Ice Age, and the time dates
when the ice scratched the Finnish landscape. Or why the Ice Age
happened (don't mess with the flood, because that does not explain
the defined direction of the ice moving across the landscape.

Sigh, I will move this to talk.origins.

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,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mr. Newton's definition
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:02:02 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:

 You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed
 to doubt that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to
 doubt christ is the son of god.  You are to simply have faith that these
 assumptions are correct. Post on christian newsgroups and most will agree
 that you must have faith in these.  If my views are a fantasy, then we
 are all being tricked by Descarte's evil demon.
 
I obviously know very few christian theologians? I think it
bit presumptuous for you to say that. I'll just mention one,
a man who taught philosophy and theology and was noted by
Publisher's Weekly as one of the most important thinkers of
the 20th century: Paul Tillich.

The fact is that although it is ever so boringly easy to
pick on zealous christian fundamentalists and the fact is
that zealots tend to post more than moderates, modern
christian theology as I understand it is not concerned with 
apologetics towards inerrancy, virgin births, etcetera,
and most of all does encourage doubt.

I think if you had any understanding of modern christian
theology (by modern I mean anything since say, 1945),
you would not attempt such sweeping generalizations as
you previously posted.

Dano
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:49:37 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <adams.714835799@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}Wrong.  Why couldn't the author have used aproximate measurements?

OK.  Why couldn't the authors of the rest of the bible be approximately
right?

}The Bible is 100% accurate in what it claims to be : a representation of
}man's state and dealings with God.  It isn't a science book, a math book,
}or a geometry book.  It is inspired, and it is never wrong on the topic it
}addresses. 

VERY good.  Sounds a lot like one of the Pope's statements.  A shame that
there exists Fundamentalists who seem to confuse what the bible _IS_ with
what they _WANT_ it to be..   :-(
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14907 alt.atheism:15934
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Aug 1992 14:17:29 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <l9nh7fINNo9e@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(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


I must say that I completely disagree with you, although it *MIGHT* be that we
have different definitions of "faith".  I'm guessing that you are considering 
faith as being equivalent to an educated guess.

When I say faith, I mean blind faith.  This is where fact and evidence is
irrelevant, and someone simply accepts something as fact.  This is the kind of
faith that christianity preaches:  we cannot question the ways of god.

Science does have a certain type of "faith".  Science is based off of
experimentation and observation (a term christians abuse far too often).  Science
accepts nothing as 100% truth; it is always willing to change its mind in the
face of new evidence.  When science calls something fact or truth, this is
because after rigorous experimentation, the results have confirmed the theory.  A
scientific fact is nearly 100% true.  It is *possible* that the next time I drop
a pencil it will fall up instead of down; it is possible that my previous
experience does not account for every possibility.

Christian faith means to accept something as fact despite having no evidence to
prove its validity.


Before you make any responses, I strongly advise you to read the FAQ file on
faith.


Jon Newton - Agnostic - Junior in Biochemistry
From: jrc@brainiac.mn.org (Jeffrey Comstock)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:51:46 GMT
Organization: Sewer of Source Code


What language did Jesus speak ?  The answer is nobody knows.  Most people
think Aramaic.  I would like to bring these two points up:

a) He taught in synagogue's, and in scriptures it is documented that he
   opened the Torah and started reading from Isaiah.  It is generally 
   believed that Hebrew was only used for religious purposes, and the
   Torah was written in Hebrew.  As far as I am concerned, Jesus was
   fluent in Hebrew. 

b) There is a theory that some fragments from cave 7 at Qumran are fragments
   of the New Testament.  I don't have the numbers right now, but I think
   they are 7Q3, 7Q4, and 7Q5.  These are in Greek and have been dated
   at 50 CE.  Perhaps Greek was used more than people think in ancient
   Palestine.  By the way, the current issue of the BAR has an article
   about Greek in NT times, but I haven't read it yet.

-- 
Jeffrey R. Comstock 
INET  jrc@brainiac.mn.org
CW    -. .-. ----- -..
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:50:16 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: faith

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:

 When I say faith, I mean blind faith.  This is where fact and evidence is
 irrelevant, and someone simply accepts something as fact.  This is the kind of
 faith that christianity preaches:  we cannot question the ways of god.

Well, if that is what you meant "blind faith", it would have
been helpful to come out and say "blind faith" rather than just
"faith". Secondly, I do not think this is what christianity
preaches: to "not question the ways of god", if that were true,
it is unlikely there would be much christian theology.
 
 Christian faith means to accept something as fact despite having
 no evidence to prove its validity.

I know of no christians who would make that claim.
 
>Jon Newton - Agnostic - Junior in Biochemistry

Dano - Agnostic - Graduate Student in Theology/Philosophy
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:38:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug25.180627.961@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.053930.8242@en.ecn.purdue.edu>  
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>> [interesting personal testimony deleted]
>> 
>> Carnal Christianity (Savior but not Lord) is not fulfilling.  I tried
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> it for a while.  God knows what is good for me more than I do!
>
>     Could you expand more on what you mean by "carnal Christianity"? The  
>reason I ask is because from your personal testimony, it sounds like your  
>perspective is basically evangelical Protestant. Many evangelical  
>Protestants often use "carnal Christianity" as a code phrase for  
>"Catholicism" (and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy as well). So, are you using  
>this phrase in the above sense, or do you have something else in mind?

I mean someone who hears and believes but does not do.

>Arthur Johnson
>johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
>
>"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer

John M.
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug22.133632.15744@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <adams.714665058@spssig>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:46:07 GMT

KJV: 1 Kings 7:23:
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it
WAS round all about, and his height WAS five cubits: and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about.

JPS: 1 Kings 7:23: [ISBN:0-8276-0252-9]
Then he made the tank(1) of cast metal, 10 cubits across from brim to
brim, completely round; it was 5 cubits high, and it measured 30 cubits
in circumference.
(1) Lit. "belly"; exact force of Heb. uncertain

----
Notice once again the translation problems the KJV has. The key here is
that a "completely round" circle of diameter or distance from brim to
brim of 10 cubits would have a circumference of 31.415926... , not 30
cubits. This is Pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and
it is a unit-less constant, so the exact size of cubit makes no
difference, it could just as well be feet or meters or whatever. And so
we have just one example of many where the words of the Bible are false,
thus the Bible is not 100% true. But most of us already know that, the
Bible is in fact a myth. Still a good myth, nonetheless. But not
factual.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:31:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.110921.682@digi.lonestar.org>,
sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James) writes:
|>In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) writes:
|>>---                          
|>>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
|>>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
|>>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
|>>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"
|>
|>Stephen,
|>
|> I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
|>god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
|>go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
|>people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
|>creatures.
|>
|> Stephen
|>
|>-- 
|>  Stephen A. James (519-2511)    | "We are the people our parents
|>  sjames@digi.lonestar.org       |  warned us about"
|>  DSC Communications Corporation |  
|>  *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |  J Buffett - for president
                      
Stephen,

 I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for
J Buffett, but please do not continue this advertising here. Why don't you
go over to the democratic or another politcal newsgroup and talk to
people who are already predisposed to discuss politics:-)

Get a life!  Stephen Buckley's comments and discussions are well thought out,
objective, and open-minded.  And you flame him on his SIG!?!  A person can 
put whatever they want in their .sig!  Get a life!
Maybe if he included "*** Standard Disclaimer ***", it would be OK:-)


Brian /-|-\
===============================================================
DON'T READ THIS!!!!  This is a secure .sig.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Invitation to Discussion on: being a Christian
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:57:57 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


An invitation:

I am trying to understand how it is that someone can be a Christian. 
Any out there that would like to discuss this matter with me?
I'm not trying to convert anybody, but if you want to try to convert me, 
that's okay, as long as you know when to "shake the dust off of your feet."

Let's do it by post for now - so that anyone who wants to can join in.

Feel free to begin as you please.

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
sd
--

Henry II: Don't you ever think??

1st Knight (reproachfully): Gentlemen, my lord, have better things to do.
 
--  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:06:46 GMT

In article <92237.150403HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
 
>
>No, Hebrew doesn't have capital letters.  Sorry.
>
Having asked if Hebrew has capital letters, and receiving
the above answer, and realizing that ancient Hebrew religion
was polytheistic, the in-escapable conclusion is monotheism
a perverted form of Henotheism.
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What Questions do folks feel must be answered?
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:31:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bu0q97.GH8@acsu.buffalo.edu> acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>Folks:
>
>Post me a list of questions that you feel must be answered in order to
>decide on the validity of any religion.
>
>Thanks.
>Ismail

I am not sure this request makes sense.  It is at least ambiguous.

From a logical perspective, the validity of a religion might indicate
the consistency of its overall claims with its premises.  "Is it
self-consistent?" 

From a secularist perspective, the validity of a religion might
indicate its consistency with generally shared premises.  "Does it
appear to be true?"

From a subjective perspective, the validity of a religion might
indicate that it provides its believers/followers with a world view
they find congenial.  "Does it appeal?"

From a pragmatic perspective, the validity of a religion might be that
it encourages moral and other behavior that is considered advantageous
to society at large.  "Does it promote good?"

From the perspective of within a particular religious view, I suspect
that the validity of a/another religion is the extent to which it
achieves the values that the speaker finds in their own view, which
might be "Does it achieve salvation?", or "Does it provide a realistic
approach to life?", or "Does it achieve a personal relationship with
God?", or "Does it offer universal peace?", and so on.

The approach of any particular individual is likely to combine several
of these in various ways, such that by definition almost any religion
must be considered, in some sense, "valid".  If the goal is to
discover which of the various religions, if any, are *the one true
religion*, I suspect the only way to do that is (at least for the ones
that proffer an afterlife) to wait and see...
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:54:15 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <lharris.2@upei.ca>, lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) wrote:
>>      Here you are right - mostly.  Evil was not an unavoidable aspect of 
>> creation. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, as 
>> long as that universe does not include free will.  I agree with Steve;\'s 
>> comment that God cannot create another God, but He can create beings perfect 
>> in what they are.

>In other words the omnipotent God is *not* capable of creating a universe
>with no sinning and free will. When will Christians stop creating
>logical traps for themselves?

Hmm.  You have an interesting definition of a logical trap.  If God creates
a universe of people with 'free will' who do not sin, there still has to be
the logical possibility of evil.  If there is no possible way to do evil,
then there is no free will.

It is entirely possible for God to create a being that would always make
the right choice.  But I don't see this as free will, for if the being
always makes the right choice, there is no possibility that they will do
evil, thus no real possibility, thus no 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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Omnipotence, Concepts, Existence
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:41:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.171600.7127@ac.dal.ca> 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>	"Well, sirs, as far as I can see, even the Lord can't beat a
>full house with three-of-a-kind!"

Don't you think She could out bluff you? You gotta know when to hold them,
and know when to fold them, know when to walk away and when to run, you never
count you money while you're sitting at the table, there'll be time enough 
for counting when the deal is done. That's another one of the commandments
that Moses droped on his way down the mountain.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15380 alt.atheism:16337
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:34:45 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <BtLz0w.BBC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
>follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
>really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
>members.

May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about anyone
else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May I dare
make the statement that I don't believe there are many non-Christians
out there who are fearful because of the gospel.

I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
see joy and freedom rather than fear.  

What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  In fact, why
do you think we are believers in the first place?

>Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
>jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."


-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:49:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Jesus said unless you repent (change) you will not see or enter the
> Kingdom of Heaven.  Repentance or changing one's ways, direction, or
> thought is common throughout the Bible, as one turns from false gods
> to the One True God.

Jesus also said that unless you sell all your belongings and join
him you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Also he said that rich
men can't get to Heaven. It is interesting to observe how the
words of Jesus could be twisted and avoided, especially here in
the rich country of USA. In other words some things Jesus said
are important, others are, eh, annoying and better not talk about 
them.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15364 sci.skeptic:15678
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:50:38 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world,local
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug31.222815.28583@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes...
> 
>Yes, we do disagree.  The true creator of a sentient being
>(especially one who can create and recreate the same being
>repeatedly at will, which creating out of nothing certainly
>implies) has the moral right to destory completely its creation.
>I am firmly convinced of this...

My parents created me (no one else was around at the time - it must have
been them!) but do not have the right to kill me.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<BtpAKJ.5wo@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <1992Aug28.181557.7202@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:38:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.181557.7202@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
>A LOVING GOD. SORRY TO ANYONE OFFENDED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE FACT.

Quite true. Unfortunately the doctrine of salvation/damnation is
compatible with the doctrine of the free gift grift, the free gift that
only requires that you accept it, and Luke 14:26. As for me, I go with 
the loving, living god or Jah if you like. I find it hard to believe that 
any of these sleazy sales techniques are of the way of light. I say
preacher man don't tell me, Heaven is not on the Earth, I know you don't
know, what life is really worth, you say all the glitters is gold, half
the story have never been told, so now you've seen the light, you're
going to stand up for your right.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism