HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:40:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67310@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-290892182041@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |Is this then a back door to rich people?
> 
> Kent, it is a back door for everyone.  For as it says, all things
> are possible with God.  

So it includes breaking with the message of Jesus. Isn't that a little
bit awkward. Jesus states that rich men don't enter heaven, but for 
God it's possible to change the ground rules for Jesus. It also implies
that Jesus is not God. More theological problems.
 
> If you'd like to cite a Scriptural reference to someone selling all of 
> stuff and so because of that being granted entrance to the Kingdom
> of God (being saved), then we can discuss it.

I have to get the Bible database to my computer so I could grep
for the famous cite.
 
> The Scripture says that we are saved by grace through faith and not 
> by works - it is a gift of God - so that NO MAN can boast.  Eph 2:8-9

Jesus added many other qualifications to enter the kingdom of God.
And he didn't boast, I guess.
 
> Again, I assume you are saying I twisted words here, maybe you aren't,
> but if you can cite entrance into the Kingdom of God by selling one's
> stuff, then do so and we will discuss it.

As Jesus said (sigh, my bible is back home), rich men won't 
enter the Kingdom of God.

> Correct you stated what Jesus said, but what did it mean and how was
> it applied?  Could the application not have been that MAN CANNOT BUT
> GOD CAN?  One can sell one's belongings and give them to the poor
> and join Jesus today, but again works do not merit salvation.  Remember
> Jesus words about those who say "Lord, Lord, didn't we do heal the
> sick and cast out demons in your name" and Jesus said "depart from
> me I never KNEW you."  Their seemingly great works weren't enough.

It is clearly a requirement from Jesus himself. Then again, if we
want to counter-attack the words of Jesus, fine with me.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics,sci.anthropology
From: jweiss@paintbrush.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeffrey Weiss)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:26:25 GMT

Asking about whether humans caused extinction of large mammals

In article <25793@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>Anybody out there with some real knowledge?

For one view, look at p178 in the September 1992 Scientific American.
There is a review of a book, "Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants:
Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record," by Gary Hanes.  I only read
the review, not the book.  It talks about the expansion of the human
population in North America and the extinction of mammoths (or maybe
mastodonts -- I don't really know the difference).  The author
compares the patterns of natural deaths in modern elephants and those
found in the fossil record.  The conlusion is that the animals died
due to natural causes and the human expansion was the result of the
abundance of food obtained by scavenging the already dead animals.
--
Jeff
jweiss@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: Good and Evil, an inseperable pair of opposites
	<l9q98gINNrmg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1340@esl.ESL.COM> 
	<adams.714963864@spssig>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:20:10 GMT

In article <l9q98gINNrmg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
Once again, it seems you have failed to address the
rebuttal, for according to your theology:
     god created everything
     god knows everything past, present, and future
     god created a satan he knew would "turn evil"
     thus, god created evil.
IMO, you have yet to show any holes in this logic.

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
Is there a problem with this logic?

In article <adams.714963864@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
<Only in that probably >90% of Christians will try mightily to deny it.
<That's what Steve Gross is doing...and why Dan made this post.  I've been
<trying to get Steve to see this for a couple of months.  
<BTW, in  case you've missed it, I'm Christian and I not only 'admit' it I
<brag about it! ;-)

>90%? It is hard to believe so many don't know this basic logical fact. Why
is it that so many Christians are uneducated, lacking in even a basic
understanding of their own religion? Why are so many Christians in denial about
this basic, fundamental, logical fact? Don't they read their own texts? Are
they too busy chasing the Devil and persecuting their neighbors? Are they too
concerned with "saving" others and forgeting themselves? One hears so much
about Christian values and morality, and here is true morality and yet so
many don't see it. Why this denial of truth? Why this denial of "The One
True Way"? The One True Way is that a truly omnipotent creator is the creator
of all, and that includes the good and the bad. Good and bad are inseperable,
one would not exist without the other. This is just one of the many pairs of
opposites that we see in the world we call reality. How can one see good
without also seeing bad? Good/Bad, Ally/Enemy. We have met the enemy and it is
us. That is basic Pogonomics, and as Mr. Adams points out, it is also
Christianity. Once you get beyond the boosh*t of free gifts and other such
grifts, so find that all of the world's religions have a great deal in common.
That should not come as a surprise, after all, there is only one Creator and
there is just The Transcendent. And all that really stands in the way of 
understanding is a lot of salesmen who are ready to make a profit on people
who want someone else to think for them. Wake Up! Use your mind! Learn from
dogma, but don't become dogmatic.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15312 alt.atheism:16272
From: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:05:49 GMT
Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO

In article <1992Aug28.154546.7049@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>In article <l9qqj2INNs92@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>|>  
|> Hmm. I don't think so. It seems to me this is an awfully 
|> poor reason for accepting any religion: that there exists
|> a creator who desires to be worshipped, with no immediate
|> impact on an individual if s/he doesn't worship that 
|> diety. This seems more like a zookeeper and pet relationship
|> than anything else.  

>Or livestock.  After all, we are Christ's sheep, and he 
>is our shepherd.

I've wondered why JC decided to use this analogy.  A shepherd's
purpose of tending sheep is to take its wool and kill it for its 
meat.  I never heard of a shepherd that raises his sheep for the 
sole purpose that they can have a good life.  Interesting too that
Socrates used this twisted analogy via his "the one who knows"
postulations.  Atleast Socrates had the realization that "the one
who knows" could not be fournd.  I wonder if this is where JC picked 
up such ideas and ran with it. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:30:34 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.714922883@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>...
>>>I guess I really need to get some of this Christian exegesis to see 
>>>what's really going on. This scripture stuff is so complicated and full of 
>>>hidden and secret meaning, isn't it? Jah! ... Ras TafarI!
>>No secret and hidden, but it does certainyl use allegory, metaphor,
>>allusion, similes, poetry, parables, etc, etc.

>And don't forget, it also requires a liberal dose of self-fulfilling
>interpretation - "The sperent is really Satan because... uh...  because it
>makes things really nice and symetrical when Satan shows up several
>thousand years later against Jesus.  Even thought that one important name
>is left out of Genesis, that's who it *must* be, otherwise it doesn't make
>sense.  Yeah, so that's who the serpent is, yeah..."

It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
Eve.

Of course, if Genesis 1-9 is simply allegorical stories, then it's the
messsage, not the literal words that is important.  Which was the thrust of
the paper I quoted from.  It's not important to insist on literalness to
get across the message that we are separated from God...through our own
faults and weaknesses.

 -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: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: buddhist fundies?
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:58:00 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug25.173006.21169@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes
> 
>>Besides on this net alone, I can find you
> [ buncha other 'ists ]
>>a Buddhist
> 
>>...who can all prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their religion
>>is the One True Faith. 
> 
> Not to say that buddhism doesn't get its share of fanatics, but which
> net.buddhist has made such a claim? 'Twould be an odd thing for most
> buddhists to declare, so my curiousity is bestirred. 


I was thinking of some of the quasi-Buddhists on talk.religion.newage,
actually. Agreed, it is odd - but here in Halifax, Nova Scotia, there are
lots of hard-core Buddhist ideologues, as the city is base to N. American
Vajradhatu Buddhism (Tibetan). Another fellow was telling me via e-mail
about the Soka Gakkai, the fanatical Nichiren lay organization. 
I've met hard-nosed Zen ideologues too (believe it or not!) 

Just goes to show ya. What, I'm not sure. But it goes to show ya....


> --
> 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


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.da.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject:  Faith vs. Reason
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:24:00 GMT

It seems clear to me that there is no empirical evidence that requires a
divine being's existence. Whether the evidence at hand suggests a creator
is mostly a matter of opinion. It would seem then that logic and reason
cannot be (certainly have not yet been) used to convince a person to
believe in God when they do not. I feel safe in saying that many Christians
would agree with this statement.

So, leaving logic and reason, many theists appeal to 'faith'. My questions
are as follows:

1) What kind of a thing is 'faith' that we should accept as 'true' what faith
   tells us?

2) How are we to determine _what_ faith tells us? (for example, why does
   faith give us the judeo-christian God as opposed to Aphrodite?)

3) How can we determine whether a person is relying on 'faith' as opposed
   to "wishful thinking"?

In order to squelch any effort at side tracking this discussion to the
issue of what gives logic and reason validity not shared by faith, I'll
attempt to answer that question up front. The kinds of questions that
logic and reason legitimately apply to are usually testable. Experience
has shown that with true premises, and valid arguments, logic will
provide the same answers as physical expirimentation. Reason, I would
argue is a less strict use of the rules of logic. Since the rules are
not so precise, reason alone does, on occasion, fail, and should not
be treated as legitimate as logic. Faith, however, seems to be
indistinguishable from simple assertion. The kinds of questions usually
addressed by faith are typically untestable. Therefore it would seem that
unless someone can provide a distinction between faith and assertion that
there is no more reason to believe in an arguement on faith than there
would be to believe an unsupported assumption.

Anyone care to try and dissuade me from my conclusions?

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:04:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BtAn60.BqC@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> I did not misquote the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26, YOU DID! Perhaps you
> should read them again. I do not see the words "love Him more" in my version
> of the Bible. Which Bible are you quoting?

Anyway, Jesus himself was a good example of this following, he didn't 
exactly have a lot of family values and family connections. How many
times do we read in the Gospels Jesus praising his family, in the same
manner as Bush?

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Pi - please read !
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:56:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.143636.16733@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	The reason why pi != 3.14 in the Bible is that the pi wasn't actually  
> 	invited yet and the circumference was measured with a rope: First you
> 	measured the radius (5 cubits) and then you measured the circumference 
> 	by placing the rope to the circle six times. 6 * 5 = 30. 

... so God used a rope to reveal the people of Israel the value
of pi???

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: This pi=3 business
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:21:06 GMT

In article <BtLxJG.DA4@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.164010.4549@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
><1 Kings 7:23 gives the dimensions of a circular shaped object --
><   Ten cubits from rim to rim = diameter.
><   Thirty cubits measuring around it = circumference.
><Ever heard of rounding off ?
><Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One
>
>Two.
>
><Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One
>
>Two.
>
><Divide two numbers of one significant digit, and how many significant
><digits can you keep in the answer?
>
>Divide two numbers of two significant digits and you can keep two in the answer,
>well, sort of, depends. There is this thing called round off error but it is
>a second order effect.
>
><"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.
>
>Yes, and Pi=3.1 *IS CORRECT* to two significant digits. If you construct a
>circle of diameter 10, the correct circumference is 31, to two digits. Are you
>saying that your God is only accurate to one digit? Not so sharp at math eh?
>
No, Paul, 10 and 30 have 1 significant digit.  
The last digit is not significant.
If 10 were to have two significant digits, it must be represented by
10.0. 

Significant Digits:  "The digits of the decimal form of a number 
beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right
to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices
used to obtain the numbers."

So, the numbers obtained are subject to the accuracy of the measuring
devices, and since no decimals are given, we must assume that the
measuring device is accurate to whole numbers only, and as such the
last digit is not significant.  Naturally, it gets worse with multiplication,
since you are propogating the error.

><Please show the intellectual honesty to remove this one from the lists
><of biblical contradictions/errors.
>
>30 is an error, the correct answer is 31 to two digits accuracy. And it's not
>like we are talking ppm error here. Make your own circle of diameter 10 inches
>and measure the circumference. You should get 31 unless you are a slob. Are
>you saying that your God is not very accurate? Was he an "every tool is a
>hammer engineer"? If it don't fit, make it? Make the numbers fit?

It has already pointed out the liklihood of the measurements being taken
with a cubit measuring rod, which would give erroneous measurements when
dealing with curved sources.
-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<adams.715098634@spssig>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:34:07 GMT

In article <adams.715098634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
>the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
>be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
>Eve.

And it looks like I must remind you that you originally said that God
made a deal with Eve that her seed would bring salvation in Genesis. As
proof you claim that the snake is none other than the famous Christian
Devil. Excuse me if I fail to follow that gigantic leap of faith. Now
please, one more time, where in Genesis does it say that God made a deal
with Eve that her seed would bring the salvation of us horrible,
miserable, evil, vile, filthy and oh so humanistic human beings. We eaters 
of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Maybe this helps:

JPS:Tanakh:Gen3:
(2:25)The two of them were naked(g), the man and his wife, yet they felt
no shame. (1)Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the
Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say: You shall
not eat of any tree of the garden?" (2)The woman replied to the serpent,
"We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. (3)It is only
about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said: 'You
shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die'" (4)And the serpent said
to the woman, "You are not going to die, (5)but God knows that as soon
as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like devine
beings who know good and bad." (6)When the woman saw that the tree
was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was
desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also
gave some to her husband, and he ate. (7)Then the eyes of both of them
were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed
together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.
(g) Heb. `arummim, play on `arum "shrewd" in 3.1

Now, are YOUR eyes open and do YOU see? What do you see?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14589 sci.physics:13377 sci.chem:3166
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:42:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Aug21.154613.3720@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>     Unless God suddenly chooses to reveal Himself to us, we will never
>know whether He exists.  Science should therefore proceed without
>assuming that He does since science is a discipline based on physical
>evidence and not on metaphysics.  Those of us who believe in Him (and that
>includes me) should not take these beliefs with us into the laboratory;
>that way lies poor science and poorer theology.

There is the idea that the revelation of God includes reality-as-we-receive-it.
(Which raises the question of whether we know if God exists after this
revelation). I would slightly modify your idea about belief in the lab - it's
probably quite appropriate to keep your God beliefs with you at all times. The
quality of your science is affected by many possible influences, and it's
ultimately up to some kind of "intersubjective agreement" to decide what the
official science is. As far as theology goes, one is usually better off not
putting aside the God beliefs, too. But even as early as Augustine, we have
the idea that when our experience causes us to believe that religious truth
is disproved, we should neither disbelieve our experience nor the truth of the
religion. We should instead find what error is made in the interpretation of
the religious truth or physical experience which causes them to seem opposed.

There is no denying that this little piece of advice, (and many others like it
from other doctors of the church, and even scholars of other religions) has not
been applied as oten as it should be. 

<Followups to sci.philosophy.meta>

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic