HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Pi in the Bible
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:08:32 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

Pi in the Bible
---------------

1 Kings 7:23 = 
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from
rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure
around it." (NIV)

This makes:
 diameter = 10
 circumference = 30

Lets assume that this object is a *perfect* circle.
Assume the circumference is *exactly* 30 cubits.
Then the diameter should be 30/pi = 9.55
Since all the figures in the text are to the nearest whole cubit,
this simply becomes 10 cubits.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Anthony Faull
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement" Heb 9:27


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:41:57 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>> 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.

and then, subsequently:

> If one develops a faith that becomes certainty in anything then include that
> in the absolutes...  I am trying to stress that that just doesn't happen for
> falsehoods.

Let's try this one out.

Do you deny that there are lots of people who have faith to the point of
utter certainty in the proposition that "There is one god, Allah, and
Mohammed is his prophet"?

Is this proposition therefore correct as stated?

> Of course to hold to this I have to think that my certainty in
> Christ is just that while X persons faith in Y (non-Christ) is only hope.

Ah. Assume your conclusion. Yes, that would seem to do the trick, even
though it renders your contention circular and thus meaningless.

Information content zero. So why bother?

> Don't think too hard about it or bother getting into a huge argument because
> I am busy w/Sean (!) and homework right now...  I know the above sounds weird
> and I really should think things through more and give reasons with my
> conclusions. Sorry.

No worries. But since you seem to say much the same thing repeatedly
(c.f. your earlier quote [top of this post]), are you then asking that
the same latitude be given to all your other posts?

> John M.

Cheers

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:14:19 GMT
 <l9kp31INNkto@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug26.002705.25158@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:


>BTW:
>Thank you Mr. Adams for the ex nihilo thing again, but it is a silly question.
>If I can think of a reason for evil existing, then surely God has a better
>one. 

Well, I said that none of these things came into being without God.   I
also said that I think that you believe that God created everything ex-nihilo 
(out of nothing).  If this is the case, how do you conclude that he didn't
create evil?

In other words, if there was notghing, and now there is evil, it had to be
created, right? 

>Also BTW:
>The passages in Isaiah never say that God created evil, only darkness
>according to your translations of the verses.  God simply CANNOT be
>responsible for evil.  If he is, then the whole of the bible is false.  I
>refuse to accept that.

Here are the Isaiah verses again, from 3 translations:

Isaiah 45:7

   "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create
    disaster;  I, the Lord do all these things." [NIV]

   "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing wwll-being and
    creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." [NASB]

   "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I
    the Lord do all these things." [NRSV]


You seem to have missed the second part of each verse!  Here, I'll break it
out:

NIV : bring prosperity, create disaster
NAS : cause well-being, create calamity
NRSV: make weal, create woe

You can't deny this and still hold that you follow the Bible!  God himself
says that he creates 'disaster' or 'calamity' or 'woe'.  Sounds fairly
clear.

God MUST be responsible for evil!  He must!  Otherwise you are giving the
power to create ex-nihilo to some other being!  We aren't to *blame* God,
but He is responsible for evil existing.  The blame falls upon us, since it
is we who chose to sin.

 -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,alt.atheism
From: mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:29:45 GMT

A friend of mine came up with this set of criticisms of Christianity:

Good behavior, or moral behavior comes from doing what God says.  This
is similar to a parent teaching a child, "X is right because I say it
is right, Do X because I say to." or worse,  "Do X or God, (or I) will
punish you."

These may be sufficient for really early childhood, when the child has
no independant way of discovering right and wrong for his or her-self.
Questions of right and wrong are more than proper references to authority.


The other major tenet of Christianity she has a grievance with is the
guilt trip, "Jesus died for your sins."  "I didn't _ask_ him to die
for me!"  she says.  As well as, "I don't want my sins to be just
_forgiven_, I want to live responsible and responsible for my actions."

She really wants a religion which emphasizes taking responsibility for
ones actions and not blaming your _choices_ on fate.  Granted you may
not have that many good options, but between the ones you have you
ought to do the best you can.  Any religion that encourages people to
be so satisfied with the status quo that they can't try to improve things
is a net loss.

Morality, what is right, comes from human beings and how they interact.  It
just doesn't make _sense_ to claim it comes from anything else.




-- 
Michael Sandy
mehawk@agora.rain.com
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"The above does not reflect the views of any organization."
From: jamesp@cs.uwa.oz.au (James Pinakis)
Subject: Re: Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:47:21 GMT

Very interesting article.  Unfortunately pointing these things out to
fundamentalist christians doesn't help much: they've always got the
old "Satan can quote the scriptures for his own purposes" retort
saved up for just these occasions...*sigh*

james
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:55:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> Ok.  My hypothesis (and it's only that) is that given truly free will, and
> the real, logical possibility of evil being actualized, someone, somewhere
> will commit an 'evil' act at some point.  Granted, you won't do the things
> you said, but what about some lesser 'evil'?  Like say, telling a lie.  Or
> getting too much change and not returning it.  Or taking the name of God in
> vain.  Or calling someone a name.  Or cheating on your taxes? I'm not accusing 
> you of anything, just pointing out that 'evil' is anything which separates
> us from God (ie == sin).

[Apoligies that I cut out the rest of this email, I do think that 
readers of t.r.m prefer short and to the point discussion].

Anyway, I still interested to know your point of if free will implies
sinning, and if God has free will, how did he achieve this gift if
the ground rules are based on sinning. Someone as powerful as God
must have sinned as well, or even God, in order create this precious
feature.

Otherwise God does *not* have a free will, which would make the current
doctrines look strange, indeed.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:06:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug20.204026.9182@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John
Emery) wrote:
> The problem is that you're talking numerically.  God is a relationship 
> (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  For just as a man and a woman, though 
> they are two, become one in marriage, so God is one.  One, not referring 
> to numerically, but unified!  God is love.  Love is a relationship
> description.  Our existance is centered around relationships: family,
> parents, spouse, friends, children.  And we are created in the image of God,
> for God is a relationship.

This is not a good example, both me and my wife are sometimes united,
sometimes not at all. Our family is built upon the strength of two
*individuals*, not one single uniform mind. Our arguing builds a 
better relation, same with our society. Collaboration and argumentation
creates better solutions. This also works in companies, in government,
in other relations between human beings.

Thus if God should work perfect, he would have three *individuals*
sitting and discussing, him, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Otherwise
the notion of relationship is just an empty shell, used to describe
something that is not true.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:25:57 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not
seen."  (Hebrews 11:1 NASB)

It follows from this that the more sure you are of the things you hope for
(for the Christian that Jesus' blood will reunite one with God) and the
stronger your conviction that that hope will come to pass, even though you
have no tangible evidence, the stronger your faith.

We have established (if that is possible here :-) that faith (and a strong
one?) are necessary to religious belief in general, and in particular
Christian belief (acceptance).

The question is then one of obtaining this faith through a building of
convictions which leads to an assuring hope, correct?  However, one condition
is that the convictions cannot be built on tangible evidence (i.e. proof).

Hopeless???  Lets see...

What this has meant to my life is that the more I explore the claims of
Christ and the historical, psycological, and scientific implications (none of
which are tangible (proof-providing) but which point a certain direction) the
more I see that they are feasable given certain assumptions - namely that God
exists as He is presented in the Bible.

How does one come to this conclusion with enough certainty to have faith?

Let me draw upon one more verse (I am trying not to thump :-):

"Faith without works is dead [blind]" (Its in there...)

What is a corequisite for a living faith?  Doing what God commands!  How do
we know what this is?

EASY!  What I am about to say is the reason why I think [know] that the Bible
       is the living word of God and no other...

As you do what you think God wants (whatever you currently think that is,
even if God is still a "what-if" in your mind) you should grow in assurance
that He is behind it to the point where there is _NO_ doubt.  If the way you
are living your life does not lead you to "assurance of things hoped for"
then obviously you had better try a different approach.

I accepted on a trial basis that what Jesus did on the cross could give me
new life through His ressurection if I could manage to believe...  What I
didn't realize at first is that God did not expect a full-grown living faith
right off the bat.  In fact such is impossible because it is a result of
living for and seeking God.

I guess what it boils down to is that one _must_ start with a blind faith.
Go ahead and do this with whichever religion you wish.  If it does not lead
to the type of dynamic, living faith described in the rest of Hebrews 11,
then move on.  I have eventually come to rest on Christianity because my
whole life is a testimony to the fact the Jesus _is_ the only way that will
allow me to claim Hebrews 11:1 for myself.

I'm late for class... Love the topic though!  Hope it gets interesting!

Humility is the key!  The one thing that you must pre-suppose is that life
can be better than what you currently know....


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: The Light
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 20:32:38 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Another sighting of The Light goes thusly,

    Thus spoke Ahura Mazda:
    "The one, who alone has hearkened to my commands
         and is known to me, is Zarathushtra Spitama,
    For his Creator and for Truth, he wishes to announce
         my holy message,
    Wherefore I shall bestow upon him the charm of speech."

                                          Gathas: Yasna 29-8

Jack Carroll
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15064 alt.atheism:16049
From: rmg53668@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ryan M. Grant)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:08:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>If you die w/o
>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>you!

Whoa, that is, IF you are worried about sin in the first place (already believe)

				- Ryan Grant
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:42:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug20.194558.24392@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley
Miller) wrote:
> I always wondered why God would have gone to the trouble of the flood, anyway.
> If he was omnipotent, why didn't he just snap his fingers and "disappear" all
> the sinful people and animals?  It would have been a lot les miracle-intensive,
> and would have taken less time.

This happened mostly because some ancient Jews stole the flood myth from
the Sumerians. Otherwise I agree, a god that *deliberately* drowns slowly
people like rats is not a gentle god.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Poetry
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:04:47 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Re: Dept. of Sweeping Generalization Warning #1 to S. Hartigan:


<sniff> The lament of the arts student: Does a statement have to be 100%
accurate to be useful? <pout>

Yours in chastisement,
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:38:38 GMT
Organization: Apple

OK, I got the Bible on my hard disk, an On Location created a 
really nice index so I could look up things fast. Bliss.

Here's the full cite from Matthew about rich men and heaven:

MAT 19:20  The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from
my youth up: what lack I yet?

MAT 19:21  Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
and come and follow me.

MAT 19:22  But when the young man heard that saying, he went away
sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

MAT 19:23  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That
a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

MAT 19:24  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

MAT 19:25  When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed,
saying, Who then can be saved?

MAT 19:26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is
impossible; but with God all things are possible.


So, what do we learn. Rich men will hardly enter into the kingdom of
heaven.
And that it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And that the young
man  went away sorrowful, because he didn't want to sell all he had
and gave it to the poor.

Which leads to the really insane (in my humble opinion) statement
that with God all things are impossible equals God allows suddenly rich men
into heaven. It would destroy all the statements Jesus did earlier.

I'm still amazed that the fundamentalist Christians don't sell all
their belongings, give it to the poor, and  follow Jesus. In other
words they don't follow the advice of their religious leader.

Or I would assume "they would go away sorrowful: for they have 
great possessions".

Cheers!
Kent
...private comments...
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14863 alt.atheism:15901
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:06:57 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


In article <1992Aug25.185242.8750@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.213415.16644@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>>
>>It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
>>to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
>>the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
>>ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
>>
>>1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>>
>>2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>>
>>If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
>>then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
>>being forgiven and not the others?
>>
>>If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
>>atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
>>in God?
>>
>>Please post your replies.
>>
>>Young Huh
> 
> It's awesome.  In the death of Jesus, we basically have God making the
> decision to forgive any and all sins.  This is pure love.  No matter
> how much and how often we have wronged Him, He has shown us in the death
> of His Son, that He has chosen in advance to forgive anyone who confesses
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like a condition to me! What happened to unconditional love?

> 
> But it takes two for it to be completed: (1) God willing to forgive, and
> (2) the person willing to be forgiven.

Apologies in advance, but this strikes me as silly. Forgiveness is in the mind
of the forgiver.  If Joe punches me, and I take offense, do I need him to
be willing to be forgiven before I can forgive him?  No! His attitude is
irrelevant.  I say to myself, well I'm not going to hold it against him. He may
say he wants me to hold it against him. But if I want to forgive him, that
matters not a whit. You are forgiven, Joe - even if you hate me, I will not
hold anything against you. 

> 
> God bless,
> -- 
> 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."


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The literal, inerrant truth of _Ecclesiastes_
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:37:31 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep4.155601.10860@ccu.umanitoba.ca> feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>
>Since the Bible is without flaw, and its story, beyond the obvious
>wordplay of metaphor, is faultlessly true, then what the Preacher
>tells us is true; and what _Ecclesiastes_  tells us is the folly of
>attempting to show the rationality, which is to say the
>reasonableness, of belief.

I am not saying you are wrong, but will you cite or quote the passages
from which you draw this conclusion, so we all can see them.

>Of course, Paul says the same thing, which only goes to emphasize the
>Preacher's warning against the writing of books.

The Preacher (King Solomon) didn't, per se, warn against writing of books,
but said the writing of books never ended (v12).  The verse just before that 
one says that the collected sayings of the wise are strong and given 
by One Sheperd, so writings are not bad.

You forgot the rest of the passage of which where the Preacher said the
whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. (i.e., our
purpose is not to study forever and write many books, but to serve God.)

   Eccl 12:9   Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge
      to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many
      proverbs.
   Eccl 12:10   The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he
      wrote was upright and true.
   Eccl 12:11   The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings
      like firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd.
   Eccl 12:12   Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making
      many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.
   Eccl 12:13   Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
      Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

Jesus expounded even more on this by saying that the people thought that they
had eternal life in the Scriptures, but again pointed out that continued
study is not the goal, but Jesus himself, for the Scriptures testify of
him and they had refused to come to him and so have life.

   John 5:39   You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by
      them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify 
      about me,
   John 5:40   yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

>-- 
>Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian (Re: Invitation to Discussion on: being a
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:56:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug24.053930.8242@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> As an engineering student (and a good one) let me assure you that I have not
> seen one argument based on human wisdom that can even begin to discredit my
> hope in Christ.  In fact just the opposite is true.

Good engineers and engineering students need good analytical skills. To
state that you have not seen *one* argument based on wisdom discrediting
Christianity is not based on good analytical skills. More like wishful
thinking.

I'm not a Christian, neither an atheist, but I state that I have seen
good arguments for and against Christianity.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism