HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Your Parting Gift
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:01:25 GMT

In article <lb270vINN7ub@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

> Anonymous Zealot #235:
> You are wolf. You are evil. I know this to be truth.
> I know bible. You do not. God speaks to me alone.
> I think I am in love with Doug Graham.

(Thinks) Now I wonder who Dan is refering to here. Any ideas Antii? :-)
(Though Antii probably won't be reading this as he is too busy these days
getting his arse flamed to cinders over on talk.origins)

Tim O'Neill
(Tasmanian Devil - and who has been listening to Bodycount's album all
afternoon and is feeling agressive)

P.S. Best of luck Dan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:54:27 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Option 3 is an interesting choice.  But all it does is push the issue back
>>one level...'whence' suffering, and why?  One common explaination is that
>>suffering exists to teach us values: right from wrong, good from bad.
>>Moral evil (ie perpetrated by humans) is educational about our actions.
>>Physical evil (hurricanes, tornados, etc) is educational about our
>>environment.  Since without substantive, observable consequences of
>>actions, we can't learn, there must be some form of suffering if there is
>>to be knowlwdge, values, etc.  I toyed with this idea for a while, but it
>>didn't resolve the problems I was having...

>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?

 -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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:16:27 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.716476933@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>An explanation of this (and I don't remember which theologian came up with
>>>>it) is that God is omnipotent, but also limited. ;-)  Here's how is works:
>>>>Before God creates, He has absolute omnipotence to create exactly as he
>>>>pleases.  Once He has created, he is self-limited by the rules He has made.
>>>>In other words, once God constructs the Universe, He limits Himself to
>>>>follow the rules He Himself has established.
>>>So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
>>>by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
>>>should ever want to forgive sin?
>>The rules are the way they are because God desired free worship from free
>>moral agents.  Thus, he established the ground rules at creation.  I don't
>>see that they are necessarily 'dumb'...just perhaps beyond our complete
>>understanding....

>I was afraid you'd say this.  It has problems.
So what's new?  If you've followed the threads I've had with Sean Hartigan
and Paul Harvey, you'd see that *I* admit that! ;-)

>What I was asking was why God couldn't create a world _with_ sin, but where
>the mechanism for forgiving it is simpler than putting Jesus on the cross.
>If a world where sin is forgiven through Jesus has people with free will, then
>a world where sin is forgiven through God alone also should have people with
>free will.  I am not asking why God cannot create people incapable of sinning
>at all, just why he can't create one where the forgiveness process is
>different.

Sure He could.  But the process He chose (and any other would do as well)
was a near perfect copy of the OT sin offering...a perfect, sacrifical
lamb.

 -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,alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Hindu "creation science"? (was Re: I visited the ICR in pers)
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00562-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:56:49 GMT


>>>The creation account that you will get from the Bhaktivedanta Institute 
>>>(better known as the Hare Krishnas) is the same as the Hindu account.

>And as most are aware, the Hare Krishnas are the Hindu equivalent of the
>Christian fundamentalist/evangelicals/TVministry/moral-majority. 

Well, I wouldn't say that. Even though the Hare Krishnas are PRETTY CLOSE
to Hinduism--- there are some differences in beleifs. Granted thet are
a "fundamentalist" sect of Hinduism--- Us fundie Chridtians are not
a sect of 'mainstream Christianity.'



Chris------The Fundamentalist
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15941 alt.atheism:16843
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:11:42 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep9.001159.7407@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <dabrowsk.715318926@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>> SUMMARY: Theism is more demanding intellectually than atheism.
>As part of my new project to achieve moral perfection, I won't even
>TOUCH that one! <smirk>
>

Well, since I have no morals (according to my xian co-workers who claim
that there are no morals without Dog..err god) I will touch that one.

It makes perfect sense.  Human nature is to question why, look for answers,
and try to learn.  Theism requires you to accept things that are totally
irrational and can't be proven.  This means that you must actively supress
your human nature.  To do so, you must use all your mind's powers.  Therefore,
theism is more intellectually demanding than atheism.


In other words, you must turn off all thought to be a theist.  This requires
more effort than keeping the brain open and thinking.
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:15:12 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>I have come to have as much faith in the "good" Christians as the
>Jews learned to have for the "good" Germans.

>When your voices are heard in the same numbers, or greater, as those
>of the fundagelical fascists I will be convinced.  The hallmark of
>mainstream Christians in the face of the Christian ultras is cowed
>silence and inaction for the most part.

>It is non-Christians and the non-religious who are doing the work
>of saving freedom from your co-religionists.

Unfortunately, in this country mainstream views seldom are put forth as
loudly as radical opinions, simply because they don't need to be.  After
all, they're already mainstream.  So outsiders can easily mistake the views
of a vocal minority for those of the silent majority.  However, in this
case, I recently heard of a group of moderate Christians beginning a 
campaign OPPOSING the gay-discrimination ballot measure.  Of course, this
isn't going to be nearly as newsworthy outside of Oregon so don't be
too surprised if you don't hear about it.  The really scary thing, which
surprised me, is that they believe it's going to be a close vote in
November, but that just shows how powerful propaganda can be, especially
in a nation where so many don't bother to learn about the real issues.
I, for one will be praying that the measure does not pass and will do my
part by voting against it.


-- 
--Ron Stieger                    **** JUST VOTE NO. ****
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
"Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone."
                                               -They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: SPIRTUAL HEALING
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:57:07 GMT

Daniel Campbell writes:

>Is there such a thing as Spirtual Healing? Wheres it come from? Where
>can one harnas it?
>                                       

----  Kindof an odd thing to ask.  There is indeed spiritual healing for
those who have experienced it.  Much of spiritual healing is false though.
 (unfortunately)   There was a series of shows on the t.v. a while ago
that showed how different ministers in different denominations would go
out to people in the foyer and ask them what was wrong with them, and then
during the meeting, claim they had a vision or whatever from God.  The
people later testified to the news crews that they were asked of their
illnesses before the meeting, and that they just went along with it so the
preacher wouldn't look stupid on t.v. or wherever.

There are just as many REAL cases of spiritual healing though.  They are
well documented episodes usually occuring on foreign soil by a missionary
team, or something along those lines.
(sfg)

---- As for where it comes from, It can only come from God.  More
literally the Holy spirit, since he is the only one at work here on the
earth currently.  The bible has many references to the fact that the Holy
Spirit is the divine healer, etc..
(sfg)

---- As for harnassing the power of God... if you can ever find anyone who
can do that, most likely you won't need healing, cause you'll be dead and
in heaven.  Noone has that power.  Only God himself.  He gives the gift of
healing to those whom he will, and stays it from those whom he chooses. 
All you can do is pray for it, and trust God to do what is right.
(sfg)


God Bless,
Steve.Gross         who IS Iraneus???????
                        ^^


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:12:00 GMT

In article <adams.715659405@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

Not to take from Muehlhausen's award-winning ignorance, but...

>Not everyone has a western view of life....not everyone values the
>individual.  Not everyone WANTS eternal life!  The ultimate end for this
>religion *IS* extinction!  Nothingness!  Eternal life is FEARED.

Well, no, if 'this religion' is buddhism. First, from a zen perspective
at least, 'eternal life' is not an object of fear. It's a redundancy, and
a nonsensical one at that. Life is what everything is doing right now.
There's no 'eternal' to it, unless perhaps one is speaking of 'eternal
moment'. Better still, if you want to understand buddhism, begin by
discarding juxtapositions like 'eternal life'.

Second, the ultimate end, as you put it, is enlightenment, awakening, not
extinction in the sense I think you mean. The thing about enlightenment is,
though, that in order to attain it you have to forget about it. The pursuit of
enlightenment as a prize is quite antithetical to the state of enlightenment
and works against its attainment. The ultimate end is in ordinary existence,
'chopping wood, carrying water'. Nothing so grandiose as extinction.

Third, the word found in the literature translates to 'emptiness', not
'nothingness', and in the buddhist context it doesn't mean what the casual
reader usually thinks it means. Buddhism is not nihilistic. Briefly, 'form
is emptiness, emptiness is form'. Anything that appears to exist is already
passing into nonexistence. Things that do not exist are even now taking
form. That is, things simultaneously exist and do not exist, their forms
being transient...more like clouds than the solid objects we see them as.
This is emptiness, or impermanence. It is a condition, not a goal. It's
the _realization_ of this emptiness, including one's own, that leads the
buddhist to freedom. This is the "extinction" you refer to above.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:23:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BuLC0w.28r@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> In article <1992Sep14.210645.4988@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >So why didn't God make a world with the rule "sacrifices in ancient times,
> >no sacrifices now"?  What he really did, according to you, was make a world
> >where sacrifices were needed both then and now, and then kludge around the
> >latter by sending Jesus to get rid of the "now" part.  A rather roundabout
> >method.  Why didn't he just make the world without it to begin with?
> 
> Because of "free-will" and the continuous nature of the creation of human. In
> other words, your kind was created with free will and created with a brain,
> to take part and get involved in the story of the creation of human. The Creator
> did not create you with knowledge of good and bad, it was you who gained this
> of your own initiative. Once slavery was OK, now we know that no human being
> is a slave because the Lord delivered our kind FROM freedom, but it is us
> who must KNOW this fact, it is us who must SEE. Once patriarchy was OK, now
> we see that women are human being also, and must have equal rights and
> justice also, this has always been the case, but it is WE who must SEE this
> as such.

A lot of words, but no substance. An omnipotent being is capable of
creating *anything*. I assume we all agree on that. It then clearly 
means that God is capable of creating universes with a far easier 
time for salvation than sacrifices and beliefs in something that 
few people understand or realize.

If this is not the case, then either God is not omnipotent, or
he screwed up.

Cheers,
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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:51:07 GMT

In article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>
}>Bad news.  The end of the world came and went.  NONE of you are worthy!
}>
}>;-)
}
}Remember that none of us can merit salvation (i.e., none of us are

Shall I avoid the obvious pun?   nahhhhhhhh.
I can meritt it!

}worthy) - salvation is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9.)  :-)
}
}Regardless of whether anyone of us is worthy or not, we would all know it, as
}Jesus described in the following passage:
}
}   Mat 24:4   Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
}   Mat 24:5   For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,  '
}      and will deceive many.

And you were deceived!

}   Mat 24:23   At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
}      or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
}   Mat 24:24   For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform
}      great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were
}      possible.
}   Mat 24:25   See, I have told you ahead of time.
}   Mat 24:26   "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do
}      not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.
}   Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in
}      the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
}   Mat 24:28   Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
}   Mat 24:29   "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be
}      darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from
}      the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
}   Mat 24:30   "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the
}      sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son
}      of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

And you MISSED it!!!!
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:43:59 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article <ksand-070992114723@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
>Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
>Date: 7 Sep 92 18:50:05 GMT

>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.

The problem of God's inability to sin does not pose any insupperable 
difficulty about his omnipotence, but may pose an ethical one. Consider
a being, G1, who can sin but due to his perpetual rectitude chooses not to; 
and another being, G2, who just cannot sin, period.  Which being is 
more worthy of worship?  Which is morally superior? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:49:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.716150359@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> 
> centry@athena.mit.edu (Jae H Nam) writes:
> 
> >	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...?
> Not according to the usual doctrine of salvation...'goodness' is not
> material to the grace of salvation, faith is.  The usual sin of a rich
> person is materialism...hence Jesus telling the rich man who was good to
> 'go, sell all you have and give to the poor, then come follow me.'

Otherwise I would agree, but the story about the rich man and Lazarus
totally deals with wealth, and not the sinning of gaining wealth. Thus
there's no consistent picture concerning wealth and sinning in the Gospels.

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: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Krishna                  
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:10 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


 We would like very much to correspond with individuals who can tell the
 difference between "non-christian" and "atheist."
 We understand, of course, that this is the Western World, which was
 founded by men who thought that "religion" meant Christianity,
 "scripture" meant the Bible, and "God" meant Jesus Christ. From what we
 find in this conference, not much has changed in the last 500 years.
 Hoping to be proven wrong.
                                          Kalki
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
                                                                                                
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15890 alt.atheism:16771