HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:45:23 GMT

Gordon Banks writes:
>I have little truck with John Calvin, but couldn't he simply
>answer that God, being omniscient, knows every act that every
>person will perform already before they do it.  Thus, the chosen
>will not be those who perform vile deeds, but those who are
>good.  I think Calvin's position is probably the logical result
>of taking seriously the ideas of both an omniscient and omnipotent
>God.  A complete foreknowledge of all future events implies
>that there is only one possible future (the one God foreknows
>will occur) and so He knows who is saved and who is damned already.
>I've yet to hear anyone who believes in the omni* adjectives for
>God give me a good explanation for how it could be otherwise.

Actually, this is (IMHO) the point of confusion which spawned 
Calvinism : an inability to separate foreknowledge and causality.

Calvinists say that if God knows all of what is going to happen, that
means he is the motivator/cause of that action.  If He knows you are going
to be saved, that means you are "Predestined" (tm) and that it is His
causing.

This seems to me simple logical confusion.  You don't have to use God as 
an example here.  Let's say a psychic predicts some event.  He/she has
perfect foreknowledge of it.  The event then happens.  Is the psychic
the cause of the event?  Not at all.

Of course God knows who will be saved and damned - he is omniscient and outside
of time.  But those actions He foreknows are still a result of free will.
(My own, nonCalvinist view.)  Calvinism just commits a logical error in then
prescribing the cause of those decisions to God.

Comments, anyone?  This is just another example of the confusion that results
after a viewing of the Terminator or Back to the Future movies on a larger 
scale.



-- 
--------------\  /^--^\  /--------------  *     Ernest Conrad Mueller IV
   ------------\| 0  0 |/------------     *     mueller@owlnet.rice.edu
      ----------\_ <> _/----------        *     Rice U., Home of Owlnet
                /V\--/V\                  *     "Give a hoot - Don't compute!"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:53:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.103505.7859@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:
> 
> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:

> >Secondly, if the man could have somehow figured out that Jesus was God
> >in disguise, why didn't Jesus praise the fellow for his insight? After
> >all, Peter supposedly got the keys of the kingdom for merely intuiting
> >that Jesus was the Messiah.
> 
> Probably the man _didn't_ realise that Jesus was God, and that this is
> what the Jesus wanted the man to realise. So when the man said "Good teacher"
> (possibly as a term of respect, it doesn't matter), Jesus asked a question
> which would have (hopefully) caused the man to think things like -
> "Only God is good?, I know I need something more to gain eternal life...
> But this Jesus character - nobody's ever found a fault with him...
> Surely He is good - but then what did He mean?"
> Hopefully, the man would eventually come to the correct conclusion about
> Jesus.

Oh bravo Michael Hartley!!! That argument would have to get you at least the
bronze medal in the 'Christian Logical Gymnastics'. A scriptual triple
somersault with half-pike, magnificent! You start with a text where a man
calls Jesus 'good' and Jesus replies 'Only God is good' with the BLEEDING
OBVIOUS implication that he is not God. You then turn Jesus' 
straightforward reply into an obscure question, place a complex chain of 
thought (which is not even *hinted* at in the gospel) in the man's mind and
(as the crowd holds its collective breath) end up with the triumphant
conclusion which you had been assuming all along! If you keep this up  you
could be a strong contender for the 'Josh McDowell Text Twisting Award' or
the 'Duane T. Gish Sophistic Pseudo-Argument Medal'.
Tim O'Neill  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dil@sce.carleton.ca (Dave Laurenson)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:57:03 GMT

walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714034287@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>> god judges us based on what we know.  

>not by what we do? sounds pretty unjust to me, since circumstances
>of birth and education often dictate what we know. 

The way I see it judgement has to depend on what we do, but that is
inextricably linked with what we know.  If I know that it is wrong to
steal but do it anyway I deserve punishment.  If I have no concept
that theft is wrong and shoplift do I deserve the same punishment?  If
so, then the courts should never be allowed to reduce sentence due to
the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime...  Thus
there is no such thing as diminished responsibility regardless of age
or understanding.

Dave.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:45:58 GMT


In a previous article, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) says:

>In article <1992Aug20.165305.26051@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>>
>>If we take the story (found in Genesis 6-9) as exactly literally true, and we
>>use Mt Everest as our highest mountain, that means that 29,000 feet of rain
>>fell in 40 days -- over 30 feet of rain *per hour*.% 
>> --
>
>Some apologists claim that the rain only amounted to a few tens of feet.  The
>rest of the water came from "the springs of the vast watery deep".  What
>"the springs of the vast watery deep" are, however, has not been tackled by
>apologists in other than virtually mythological terms.  See arch-creationist
>Henry Morris's _The Genesis Flood_, for example.
>
>Any naturalistic explanations of this always neglect certain very basic
>physical laws or geological observations, and reduce to the idea that God
>must have created the water out of nothing or performed so many miracles to
>get around the physical problems that one must ask, Why bother?
>

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.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:11:40 PDT

In article <1992Aug11.031401.1183@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, on 11 Aug 1992 03:14:01 GMT,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

>
>>>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>
>This passage is not a rejection of diety.  Nor is it a claim of diety, as
>many Christian commentators claim.  All he says to the guy (to paraphrase) is
>"You are calling me good.  Do you understand what you are saying?"  To say
>any more is to draw inferences based on one's previous ideas.  If someone
>wants to read between the lines, go ahead but understand what you are doing (to
>paraphrase a comment Jim Merrit made to me one time).
>
If this passage is not an explicit rejection of diety, that's only
because the very idea would have been absurd in the context. Jesus never
regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea
as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten
Commandments. When Jesus said that no one is good but God alone, he
obviously meant to include himself in that category.

>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
    ====Jack====
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:54:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug21.201524.20950@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes...
> 
>Some years ago, some scientists put the basic compounds known to exist
>back in the earth's early days in a large container. They included CO2, N2, H2O
>and other compounds. I recall O2 was NOT one of the compounds supplied
>in abundance.

Haldane did such an experiment.  The muck is sometimes called "Haldane soup."
Urey and Miller also did similar work, if I remember my high school biology.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14457 sci.physics:13279 sci.chem:3137
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:03:03 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>     Have you ever mixed chemicals up in a flask and gotten one molecule of
>protein, let alone DNA?

Scientists doing these experiments have gotten numrerous protiens to form
(not just the amino acid building blocks.)  A lot of these form protieniod
spheres.

But why is a long molecule of DNA important?  Almost all origins theories
ahve simplier systems forming which then incorporate DNA.

>If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
>forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around? 

Probably because their mode of replication was much less efficient than the
one's who used DNA and simply got out-competed.

>What forms of life
>have no DNA in them?

One of the leading hypotheses is that RNA was the first replicator.  It has
been shown in the labratory that:

	1)  RNA nucleotides (the single building blocks) will aggragate into RNA
	molecules.

	2)  RNA molecules will replicate themselves on their own from free
	floating nucleotides.

	3)  RNA can form more complex structures than just a single strand, and
	can possibly act as catalysts.

It can also pos an explaination on why RNA is used in transcribing protiens,
and not more DNA.  The RNA wsa originally used for that task and was never
usurped from it.

>Can you shake a flask of proteins and get DNA?

No, with reason.  Protiens are made from amino acids, DNA is made from
deoxyribonucleotides.  Completely different building blocks.

>     Evolutionism is no more a science than magic.

Yeah, right.  How about trying to find out more about the stuff before you
try to bash it.

>Vince Summers
>vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:34:07 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
: In article <1992Aug16.031219.28723@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: > 
: > This is a fairly common course taken when Christians witness to others.
: 
: Thank you, but I don't witness to others unless asked:-)

I didn't mean to imply that you were.  I just saw a subject I wanted
to persue.

:: [deleted for space]
:
: I hope my little testimony didn't sound like I was gloating, although
: I am really happy. Everyone's story is different, we can't all have the
: same exact experiences. I believe in the great diversity of God(tm) to
: deal with everyone individually.

Do you believe that God exercises this diverse ability with 
everyone in the world thus providing them with a chance to be saved?
If not, am I going to Hell if he doesn't get around to me?
Am I at a disadvantage because I am not impressed by psychological
crutch arguments?

: I suppose I should just keep quiet and not tell anyone of my 
: experience, but when something nice comes your way(general "your")
: it is acceptable to tell others about it, imo.

I appreciate your contribution.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:49:26 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
>Credulity: undue readiness of belief.
>Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

>Faith is a virtue in Christianity.  Faith requires credulity.  How can
>you deny it?  Will God condemn me to hell for lacking credulity?  

  belief in god is only undue for you because there is no proof in the
means you would accept.  i accept broader parameters.  it's not undue
for me.  don't stop forgetting that i spent a decade convinced it was
undue.  i didn't just wake up one morning feeling intellectually weak
and i just jumped at salvation.  it was a long arduous process of having
my incredulity appeased.  god can fulfill all incredulity: doubting
thomas is the prime example.  incredulity is fine because he can appease
any amount of it.  it is disbelieving people he will not take home with him.
  
>: i spent 10 years exploring all sorts of alleged routes to god
>: before i spent a whole year examining what jesus offered me in terms
>: of salvation, personal healing and answering my metaphysical questions.
>: there has been no suicide in my intellect beyond dropping the intellectual
>: position that there can be no right answers--that philosophy was one of
>: the most empty ones i ever held before.

>What if I don't like the "right answers"?  For some Christians the
>"right answers" include patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, creationism,
>etc., etc.  I would rather flounder in a sea of uncertainty than live
>in a castle built on a foundation of air.

  and those christians have no idea of jesus.  this is why i say if you
want to learn about jesus, read the bible and see where it justifies none
of the above.  i don't like those "right answers" either, that's why i
look to scripture for how jesus is and god wants me to live.  christians
perverting jesus message was enough to keep me from believing for 25 years
until i found out that they were all wrong and the authentic goods were
far more appealing, more than anything in this world.  

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:10:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.134805.9614@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug11.150440.27507@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>>But how did the oceans manage to stay on land for 40 days? Water lifted
>>>>1/2 mile above sea level will want to get back quickly.
>>>
>>>	Yes, but the mountains weren't so high. 
>
>>Where in the Bible does it state that the mountains weren't so high? How
>>could they have grown so much taller in such a short time?
>
>	I give you two hints:                 
>
>			1. Water
>
>			1a Water in the flood
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
>      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived

I really HATE to enter this discussion, seeing as how I am viewed
an "apostate" by Andreas, as you all know, but I have a few comments
here on the JW's world view.

According to my understanding as a young spry Jehovah's Witness,
before the flood it never had rained on the earth.  That's why the
people ridiculed Noah for preaching a global deluge.  Now.  The
world was also much flatter at the time, the highest mountains not
being the same height as they are today.  That's how all the water
could cover the whole earth.

However, with all that water on the world, according to "JW Catastrophism",
the mountains were formed somehow within that short period.  
(Any comments from Geologists?  How much heat would this generate?)
And that's where our tall mountains come from today.

Not only do the JW's have to reject evolution, but to support their
belief in the flood, they have to reject conventional science that
says that it took a LOONG time for the mountains to form.

Incidentally, I think the ice cores don't show evidence of a global
flood, and there are corals in the sea that take thousands and
thousands of years to grow, which would have been destroyed in
the flood.  Maybe someone should send that file "Problems with
a worldwide Flood" to Adreas?




-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: grave desecration (was Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:16:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224339.16515@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>I wonder how we would feel if we knew that in a couple of thousand years
>people would dig up our bones, rob our graves, and put the artifacts in
>the museums.  If this did turn out to be same Caiaphas, I wonder if the
>Kohens of the world will protest that their relatives grave is being
>dug up.
>
>Link Hudson.

It certainly would not bother me.  I have no use for my body after I
die.  I would hope that my organs could be useful to others, but other
than that, who cares?

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:01:01 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714033918@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, I wish to say simply that the cited evidence for God is no
>>better than the evidence that I cited for the "Great Pumpkin".
>>Since the author probably doesn't believe in the GP, why does he believe
>>in God?
>
>  for me because while there is no evidence for the great pumpkin, there
>is the bible, my life experience with jesus and the life experience of
>millions of people with jesus that deserve more study than a hypothetical
>pumpkin saviour.
You could say a very similar thing about Allah.

Are you a Muslim as well, Mr. Buckley?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:24:34 GMT

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?

  both answers are yes.  all sins have been forgiven.  but that was
just good friday.  on easter sunday, jesus was resurrected and provided
with eternal life along with all who accept the sacrifice.  with our
free will, we must choose to come to god in jesus for salvation.  so
an atheist is forgiven, but to receive eternal life, one must accept jesus
as saviour.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:30:24 GMT

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21155605@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>     Have you ever mixed chemicals up in a flask and gotten one molecule of
>protein, let alone DNA?  

The last poster mentioned amino acids which proteins are built out of after
only a few days, life took billions of years and all the space on earth to
get started.
Its already been explained that life need not start with DNA, all life
needs to get started is any self reproducing reaction.

>If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
>forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around?  

1) Maybe they are.
2) Maybe they have all been eaten :-)

>Can you shake a flask of proteins and get DNA?

Shake a flask full of the chemicals that DNA is made up of...

>     Evolutionism is no more a science than magic.

It would seem your conclusion depends on the answers to your questions...
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.romance.chat