HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: [1 Kings 7:23 and Pi], just the warmup for Luke 14:26
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:32:49 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BtM488.Ero@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Oh, all right. I suppose the assumption that your God might have a more
>precise understanding of such a universal constant as Pi is asking for too
>much. So, perhaps you'd like to nitpick your way out of Luke 14:26? Is that
>iron hot enough for you? Please explain the "damning discrepancies" of Luke
>14:26. Where is the accuracy of your Bible now? Which translation are you
>picking as the exact word? If you ask me, the explanation is fairly obvious.

As others have reference, including myself, the parallel passage in Matthew
is this

Mat 10:37   "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not
   worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not
   worthy of me;
Mat 10:38   and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not
   worthy of me.
Mat 10:39   Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life
   for my sake will find it.
Mat 10:40   "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me
   receives the one who sent me.

Do you disagree this is the parallel passage to the Luke one?
This is NIV, but the KJV uses similar wording - thus we can see that
'hate' in Luke parallels 'love less' in Matthew.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15196 alt.atheism:16173
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:09:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <graham.715309353@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(Graham Matthews) writes:
(some things deleted)
>Where do you get the "Jesus freak" bit from?
>

The term "Jesus Freak" used to be applied to a subset of
christians who exhibited most or all of the following traits:
usually young, very energetic in their evangelism, incredibly
simple minded, totally convinced of their own rightness,
usually not involved in "mainstream" churches.  Boorish, but
sometimes entertaining.  The Jesus Freaks I knew in college
were easy to spot because they all work large ( > 6 inches tall)
wooden crosses around their necks.  They thought they could
convert the more scientifically inclined (like me) with
arguments like "The universe is so complex that it must
have been created by God", or "Einstein believed in God,
and who are you to disagree with Einstein".  And they would
say things like this as if these were totally fresh and
devastating arguments.

Also, here in the USA, Jesus Freaks often said that the 
Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were
written by God, and like the Bible they were perfect and
contained no contradiction.

As a clue to their mindset, several Jesus Freaks I knew
eventually joined the Moonies, a group to which the
adjective "blind faith" seems especially appropriate.

I do not know if the original poster was referring to these
people when the term "Jesus Freak" was used.  This is 
what I mean by "Jesus Freak".

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:35:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714252726@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> 
> Paul Harvey writes:
> 
> > One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
> >find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
> >authentic individual living an authentic life.
> 
>   and the way of self-worship because there is nothing certainly-knowable
> greater than yourself [like God(tm)] to judge whether you've got god or not.  
> at this level when you are in control of god's definition, you control god,
> thus you are god.

How does this differ from human religious groups that control how
god should be worshipped?

Cheers,
Kent
---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: schmorganization! Jah! Ras Tafar I!
	<1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <sbuckley.714784977@sfu.ca> 
	<17g3d3INNp8o@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <dabrowsk.714864834@liveboard10> 
	<17oq1vINNp27@maico.ksu.ksu.edu> <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<182ggiINN5r9@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> <sam.715453681@spssig>
	<18593vINNdgg@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:54:58 GMT

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>1)  Is faith in christ required?

Who defines the meaning of these words, God or human?

>2)  Can god's existence be proven?

From a scientific/reductionism/logical viewpoint, no.

>3)  Is the bible god's word to man?

All written word is written by human beings, excepting that written by chimps
and such. Now, that said, and given that the written word is created by the
human being, who created the human being?

>4) If so, why is it so inefficient at conveying his message?  Don't try to say
>that the problem is man's fault either.  Who's fault is it when someone can't
>understand the literature: the author or the reader?

Both. A story is only a story when there is a teller and a listener. This is
the Eastern sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear.

>5)  Is the bible a compilation of metaphors?

It is a largely metaphorical work. It pertains to religion which is organized
mythology which pertains to myth which is metaphorical. That does not exclude
historical fact, for example the metaphorical work of Homer. If you want to
be serious about it, all written work is metaphorical, even the Yellow Pages.
It is the reader who "reads in to", thus making metaphorical. It is the
reader who is the judge, for the reader. Art is what you make of it.

>6)  If so, why were metaphors used, since they result in very subjective
>interpretations?  

Just for that reason. I believe it was Nietzsche, possibly Goethe, who said
that the best can not be said, the second best is not understood, that leaves
only metaphors as the third best way to "say". Metaphors transcend words, that
is why they have power, power of transcendence, transcendence of word.

>7)  Is the flood a myth (see your oxford nrsv)?

Yes, a very ancient and near universal one. It is obviously at the core of
what it means to be a human being. I take your meaning of myth in a positive
light, not the more common negative light. For a written word to be mythical
is the highest complement.

>8)  If so, how do you know what is fact or fiction in the bible?  Why can't
>everything be a myth?

If you look only for fact and fiction, you will miss the beauty of myth.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:56:50 GMT

In article <66919@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>   Jer 29:6   Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and
>     give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and
>     daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.
>Note the purpose here was to increase - it takes a man and a woman.

You know, every time this turns up _someone_ will point out that this
cannot be literally right, since sterile people are permitted to marry.  And
sometimes I wonder if anyone has really thought about that.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:12:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug28.063716.14973@ctr.columbia.edu>,
locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) wrote:
> >  i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
> >brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
> >we do on faith alone.  and i don't say my view is right because it
> 
> Perhaps something like this cannot be prooven, but when there is no evidence
> for your assertion, by occam's razor, we assume that it does not exist.
> Blindly saying that because we cannot proove one thing absolutely means that
> all theories are equally valid is foolish and a common ploy of christians
> arguing with atheists. This error in logic was destroyed in the 12th century by
> William of occam...

If faith would provide the key to understand non-logical statements,
it opens the can of worms where Santa Claus, fairies, humanoids,
witchcraft, astrology, predicting the future using tea leaves, and similar
faith-based constructs would be valid.

Anyway, we have enough of superstition in this world, and a big
lack of common sense.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 05:43:24 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

In article <10454@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <w4bn84q.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>Christianity teaches that sex before marriage is wrong because it
>>belittles the importance of the act.
>
>Chapter and verse, please.

Okay, I made a mistake.  I dug up my copy of the Bible and checked,
and nowhere in the Bible does it say more than "sex before marriage is
wrong."

But in my Lutheran Sunday school classes and Catholic theological
classes, I _was_ taught that sex is something holy, to whose meaning
adultery and fornication are an insult.

Besides, I didn't find any mention in the Bible that sex is
"disgusting", either.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Twin Peaks Junkie    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lesbian Cross-Dressing Lizards!
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:00:31 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)

In article <1992Aug19.031214.23684@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence (Pete Zakel) writes:
>(I seem to recall some mollusks change sex as they get older, so
>mollusks at one end of the progression fertilize others that are at
>the other end in the other state).

I haven't heard of any such mollusks, although some barnacles do it.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship (Buddhist perspective)
Organization: All things are buddha things!
	<ksand-290892183022@wintermute.apple.com> <fRYJ6pY@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<1992Aug31.103102.7231@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:14:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.103102.7231@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> Re: self-worship
>The Buddha taught "anatman," that there is no such thing as the self. It seems
>likely to me that if questioned on whether or not his aim was to become God,
>one with God, realize Nirvana, etc., a true Buddhist would smile mysteriously
>and say "There is no self to become anything, there is no becoming, and nothing
>to become, neither is there any realization to attain. So what possible aim
>could I have? <smirk>"   

From a buddhist perspective, this makes sense, but I don't think Christians can
make any sense of this. Christians want to know what's in it for them, what
kinds of free gifts are available. Christians want fire and brimstone
entertainment and they want the reasons for all the suffering in the world. 
They want accused and they want them to pay. They want good seperated from
evil even though the way of enlightenment is the union of these two opposites.
They fail to see that the creator is the creator of all, not just the creator
of perceived good. They want all the joy but none of the suffering. All of the 
good but none of the bad. They despise flesh and humanity yet they want the 
promise of eternal life. Most Christians get stuck at chakra level 2, it is
there that they find the most joy and it is there that they rest and put
aside any goals of acheiving more.

>"There is no pain, nor cease in pain,
>nor even wisdom to attain. Attainment, too, is emptiness."
>- from the Prajna-Paramita Sutra  (Heart of Perfect Wisdom)

Heaven is right here, right now, only most don't see it. Hell is not seeing
it. We are seperated from the Kingdom of the Lord, but not by time, by
perception.
- I leave it as an exercise for the student to find the source for that
  knowledge of the way of light. I assure you that I am not that enlightened.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:33:09 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <182ggiINN5r9@sam.ksu.ksu.edu>
yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>In article <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>>(Jonathan W Newton) emphatically defines christianity:

>>> This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to
>>>have faith that christ is the savior and son of god.  This means
>>>that you do not question (think critically) about the subject of
>>>god in any way.  Furthermore, anything that the bible says is true
>>>is not to be questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith and
>>>accept it as fact.  To put it simply,faith in something means you
>>>believe in something without proof or reason.

>>And this is Mr. Newton's fantasy about how christians
>>define faith. I am unaware of ANY christian theologian
>>who would agree with his view. 

>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.

And you obviously don't know all Christian theologians.  There are
some who believe that the question of the existance of God is
important and that a critical study must be done.  It is only after
such a study that one can obtain faith.

Mark
-- 
   Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without
losing your temper or your self-confidence.
   -- Robert Frost
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:33:27 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Steve Adams) writes:

    Similarly, the story of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 2:4ff shows us
    that even given only one rule, man is not able to keep it.  ...


Of course there is another perspective to the Garden of Eden
story: Imagine that you are a very intelligent and very powerful
father of two small children.

Now put your children in a room filled with all kinds
of wrapped toys. In the very middle of the room, with
the biggest box and wrapping there is a present.

You tell your two children that they can unwrap and
play with any toy in the room EXCEPT that one.

Then you leave the room.

Why should what happens be of any surprise? 

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
Organization: The central mountain is Harney Peak, SD, but the central ...
	<fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:20:38 GMT

paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg) writes:
If God is allmighty, can he then create a boulder so larger he cant lift it ?

In article <adams.714666392@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
No, because this is a logical impossibilty....and the question has no
meaning...no different than you creating a 'square' circle.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
Hmm, I guess your God is not so allmighty and powerful then. My God can
create a 'square' circle and she would call it an n-sided polygon. My
God is allmighty and can do anything, including create a boulder so
large that she couldn't lift it. It must be somewhat of a disappointment
having a God who is not allmighty. :::B^}

In article <adams.714836722@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>In case one, your god is not creating a circle.  She is creating an n-sided
>polygon.

Ah, but my God says that She can make an n-sided polygon be the same as a
circle. But then again She is allmighty. She has infinity on Her side. She is
also an expert mathematician. She knows the exact value of Pi, but it would
take a long time for Her to tell you it.

>In case two, your god is not almighty, for there now exists a boulder which
>she is unable to lift. Not very powerfull....

Ah, but once created, She would then lift it, thus creating a miracle. Very
powerful and allmighty, as a matter of fact, transcendent. So how do you cope
with a God who is not allmighty and only knows Pi to one digit? :::::B^}
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:07:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug30.082312.26247@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
> others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
> because I want it to be.  Doesn't that mean anything?  The fact that I am
> more sure that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life than that I will be
> alive after this keystroke?  (I am, BTW :-)  It wasn't always that way...
> God won't let me go though, and through a personal knowledge of Him I can say
> for sure that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him (that's
> some verse too - can't remember which).  I still have a long way to go, but I
> have also come a long way.  (I mean in loving Him the way He loves me..)

Sigh! Speak about a naive view of Christianity. If we have person A
that is a faithful Christian, and person B that is a faithful atheist,
and they both have 100% assurance that they are right, what's the
difference
then really? 

Actually I don't have faith in any of the current world views, I still
remember the time when people had faith in that leeches cured illnesses.

That about faith.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Keywords: faith
Organization: faithful followers of follow me and be free
	<1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <sbuckley.714784977@sfu.ca> 
	<17g3d3INNp8o@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <l9nh7fINNo9e@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<17glc9INNqfs@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <l9q8v8INNrm2@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:28:35 GMT

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

(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
I know of no christians who would make that claim.

---
Interesting words, I see lots of crutches and quite a lot of the way of dark.
Let's try and flush this out:

1. Christians who claim that faith means accepting as fact with no evidence.
Hmm, I have to admit that doesn't sound very Christian to me either. Sounds
like a crutch or perhaps a trick of the Christian Devil, naw, maybe it's
just the Church Lady. This is the Dan Quayle approach, isn't it? Not much
need for a brain here, no real need for study, just follow the leader. Now
that is blind faith, not unlike 1930's Germany. Pity the poor followers.

2. Christians who claim that faith means accepting as fact with evidence.
Now, this is more like the Christianity I know. Depending on degree, the
evidence can be a bit spotty, but that doesn't stop anyone from accepting
it as fact blindly.

3. Christians who claim that faith means studying dogma for oneself and
drawing one's own conclusions about validity. Validity towards understanding
life, not blind faith in myth. Now this is a true Christian.

Are there more variants of Christians?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:19:11 GMT
 <adams.714663184@spssig> <fRJlrrM@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714837075@spssig> <BtLvHF.Cs6@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <adams.714837075@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>From a paper I wrote for a theology class:

>   We find this covenant in the conversation between God and the serpent
>where God tells the serpent that

>        "(15)...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
>        between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
>        and you will strike his heel." (Gen 2, NIV)

>This antagonism is used to symbolize the struggle between good and evil,
>played out in human history.  The promise is fulfilled in Christ's
>suffering and victory over death and Satan, in which we all will eventually
>share.  Paul makes a clear allusion to the promise in his comment that
>"...the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet"  (Rom 16:20,
>NIV).
>See also Gal 3:19-20.

>---
>I still don't see where it says that God promised Eve that her 'seed' would
>bring on a savior to redeem mankind. Are you forming a new religion here?

Not at all.  This is basic Christian exegesis of Genesis 2:15.  Any good
commentary on Genesis will tell you this.  A good study Bible will include
this too.  (Try the NIV Study Bible from Zondervan, for example).

 -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