HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:43:47 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc16.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>
>  Comparison to other documents:
>
>ANCIENT LITERATURE             # MANUSCRIPTS           PROXIMITY TO
>                                                       ORIGINAL COPY
>-----------------------------  ----------------------  -------------
>Livy's History of Rome                 20                500 yrs
>Caesar's Gallic Wars                   10                900 yrs
>Tacitus' Annals                         2                800 yrs
>History of Thucydides                   8              1300+ yrs
>History of Heroditus                    1               1000 yrs
>Writings of Aristotle                   5              1400+ yrs
>
>  Now remember - all of these are universally regarded as accurate.

Utter rubbish.  Name one philosopher, historian, literary scholar or 
_anyone_ who takes the texts you mention seriously who does not approach 
them critically, and in the light of ongoing scholarship dedicated to 
testing the credentials of the manuscripts in question.

o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
| David Spurrett, Department of Philosophy |  `I have seen the truth, and |
| University of Natal, Durban              |   it makes no sense.'        |
| email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za      |              - OFFICIAL!     |
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:48:24 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>> >Chant Hare Krishna. This is the method of verification.
>> 
>> Okay, I just did.  Nothing happened except that a cat meowed at me.  I
>> suppose this verifies that Krishna does not exist, unless you want to
>> say that Krishna has been incarnated as Fluffy.
>
>Too bad. Chant more. Krishna's in the cat, but the cat's not Krishna.

Tell you what: I am prepared to prove to you that Fluffy the Cat is
God.  Just chant "Owatta goo Siam".  See, now it should be clear to you!

What, you still don't believe it?  Well, obviously you've got to chant
more.  Keep chanting until it becomes clear to you, and chant loudly
and in public places.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21505 alt.atheism:21632
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:22:42 EST
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
 <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com>

I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)

The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
religion (to our present knowledge )?

  Just curious,
       Eylon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eylon Geva            |   "Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming,
geva@orville.psu.edu  |    It's not so easy to stop from screaming..."
exg106@psuvm.pdu.edu  |                            Iron Maiden
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:54:49 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

In article <17479@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <BxBtMy.CGs@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>In article <25OCT199220165792@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...
>>>Do the Mormon's worship a different God from the rest of mainstream
>>>Christianity?  Do we worship a different Jesus?  Let us put this stupid dispute
>>>to rest.
>>> 
>>>Yes!  Yes!  A thousand times yes.  We worship a different God.  We preach a
>>>different Jesus.  We are not the same religion as you fundamentalists.  If you
>>>are Christian, then we are not.
>>
>
>John puts it strongly, as usual, but he is right.  Each person can
>only speak for him or herself, but I certainly can not worship
>any God who condemns the bulk of the human race (his own creations,
>no less) to hell, including innocent children, for not believing
>in "the right Jesus".  I can't worship any God who would condemn anyone to
>eternal torture *regardless of their sins*.  I wouldn't do that
>myself even for someone as evil as Hitler.  Most enlightened humans
>recognize torture as something beyond the pale of justice, yet here
>we have this supposed God that uses it as a routine punishment,
>for even the slightest sins, and calls that justice.  Yes, I recognize
>that I am a sinner, but no, I don't think I am deserving of the
>punishment the fundamentalists have in mind for me.  

I entirely agree with the sentiment of this (though I have no beliefs
in any "God").

>The God I worship
>is engaged in a struggle to prevent such suffering.  Because humans
>are free to make their own troubles, He isn't entirely successful,

Come now.  This is a simple matter for your God, no?  All he need do is
rearrange the laws of the universe such that humans are physically
incapable of suffering.  Unless, of course, you wish to claim that your
God is incapable of doing this.  Note that such a rearrangement would
have no effect on (illusory as it is) free will.

>but the idea that God would turn away from anyone at any time because
>they don't quite believe in "the right Jesus" is repugnant.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: non-Christian Religions, was Truth in topic
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:18:32 GMT

In article <fVDUgpE@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <ksand-211192125210@wintermute.apple.com> 
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.184129.11977@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
>>> It is very interesting to scan through all the topics addressed on
>>> this group (misc. religious) and note that overall Christianity in
>>> its various forms is discussed much more than anything else....
>>....I agree that this newsgroup is artificially
>>too much biased towards Christianity. There are many other religions
>>in the world.
>
>What kind of topics would you like to see discussed? Why don't you post
>your questions and see what people answer?

ok...from ground-zero...
(1) What is a *non-Christian* religion?
I think we also need to address:
(2) What is a *Christian* religion?  

I really don't care to guess what anyone means.  It's all semantics
and labels as far as I'm concerned until you get personal.

I've noticed that Jesus makes his way into the Qu'ran so I guess
Islam is Christian :-q
There's been a whole boat-load of debate not long ago on whether
Mormons are Christian...
Every other sect of anything seems to like the *Golden Rule* so
I guess everyone's Christian right?
Does being named after Biblical characters or associated Saints
make one Christian or just hypocritical?

Terence (a poet contemporary to Virgil?)

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.
For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us;
but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.  [guess who]
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:03:53 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <mjenkins.721875575@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just flat out lying?
>
>If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
>right now.

Who is "we"?  If all Christians (since it is their god that is being
discussed) commit suicide (which they actually are not supposed to do)
right now, we, the rest of the inhabitants of the planet (atheists,
agnostics and adherents of other religions), will ... er ... do
nothing in particular.  Le soleil brillera toujours.  I mean it will
be very regrettable, and all that.  Just do it quietly, folks, okay?

>Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
>him with anything

Good point.  High time for it to be raised.  Let's elaborate on this.
Just don't give up too quickly.

>...specifically his comment about Satan being "the father of lies."

Well, Satan may still be the father of lies.  Doesn't mean that no one
else may lie just because of that.

>Come on....God is incapable of lying.

I thought he was omnipotent.

>It completely goes against his perfect nature.

Why's that?  Why does a perfect nature imply lack of this particular skill?

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:14:22 GMT

In my last post I noted that I see no need to continue if Mr. Sandvik
withdraws his claim that he is morally sound.  As Mr. Sandvik has
asked a question which implies he would like me to continue, I must
conclude that he has not withdrawn his claim.  Perhaps he would make
the status of his claim clear for us.

I continue to resent the implication that what I have written is not
relative to this thread.  Kent Sandvik writes:

>Let us go back to the discussion, and use email for personal
>attacks.

I have reacted to the claim that Kent Sandvik is morally sound, a
claim made relative to this thread by Mr. Sandvik himself when
included in an argument, "You are just now dealing with a morally
sound man...."

It is true that this made the discussion personal.  It is also true
that I have had unfortunate encounters with Mr. Sandvik in the past
related to his clear misuse of propositional logic, and that the
unfortunate resolution to those encounters has given me reason to
question the truth of Mr. Sandvik's claim of moral soundness.  What is
not true is the assertion that Mr. Sandvik's moral soundness is
unrelated to this thread.

I wish to publicly offer Mr. Sandvik some advice.  If one does not
wish to have his person discussed in this forum, one should refrain
from using one's person as support for one's arguments.

> Now, the issue was about moral values and atheist
>individuals. Do you Mr. Skinner have any opinions about this issue?

I entered this thread only when I saw a claim being made that I feel
is false.  If that claim and the argument that went with it are
withdrawn (Mr. Sandvik should clarify whether this is the case), then
my interest is as well, for the subject of this thread has been
discussed many times before.  To answer the specific question: Yes, I
have opinions about this issue.  To answer a question which may be
implied: No, I do not wish to share them at this time.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:49:39 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

It is quite bold for a person to claim that he is morally sound.  

Kent Sandvik writes:

>You are just now dealing with a morally sound man that does not
>exactly belong to any of the current religious orders.

I must question the accuracy of this first part of this claim.  In my
opinion a morally sound man acknowledges an error when it is pointed
out to him.  From Kent we have not received any acknowledgement of the
logical mistakes made in earlier discussions (e.g. calling the logical
inverse the negation).
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:36:08 GMT

king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: >God knew that Adam and Eve would cause Original Sin *before* he
: >created them, and yet *he* chose to create them.  Either God
: >blocked his omniscience in this case allowing for either possibility, 
: >or else Adam and Eve didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding 
: >their sin.  By the way, when God created Adam and Eve, what was the
: >probability he programmed into them that they would eat the fruit?
: >50/50?  Is the misery in the world today the result of a lousy set
: >of probabilities programmed into us by God?  Could someone please
: >answer these questions for me?
: 
: Before? What makes you assume that?  It was only on rare occasions
: that God chose to look ahead (read prophesy).  For example, at Gen 22
: we see the account where God tests Abraham's faith by asking him to
: offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.  God didn't choose to know this 
: in advance.  It was only at the point of Abraham about to plunge
: the sword into his son that he was stopped and God states "...for
: now I do know that you are Godfearing..."

You make it sound like God was testing Abraham.  What's the big
deal if Abraham was willing to kill his son?  It happened all the
time in those days.  This story makes a lot more sense if you
read it as though God was doing all this to make a point to
Abraham.  The days of child sacrifices are over!  Sure, maybe he
could have just commanded it, but the impact of such a command is
much less than doing it the way it is depicted here.  With this
interpretation, it has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge
of Abraham's action.  In fact, it would have made sense for
God to use his omniscience when picking a subject for his plan
that he knew would have been amenable to the test.  All you've
done is demonstrate the common mistake of taking quotes out of 
context.

: 
: As far as Adam and Eve, their disobedience was inexcusable.  First,
: unlike you and I, they were perfect humans.

Obviously Adam and Eve weren't perfect, or they wouldn't have 
disobeyed God.

God created Adam and Eve with the ability to disobey.  Why 
didn't He create them with enough will power to withstand the 
temptation?  Since your perfection assertion doesn't stand up
to scrutiny, could you please try again.

:  As such, they are held
: to a much higher standard than we are.  By the same token, they had
: everything they could possibly want.  Anything they wanted, they had.
: God just asked for one little thing in return.  And that simple
: piddling little test they failed.

I could have withstood that simple, piddling test.  The government
tells me not to do something, so I don't do it.  Why should I
be any less tractable over such a trivial command as the one God 
gave?  Why should I have to pay for their mistake when I could
have done better in their stead?
-- 
> Jeff Young <
> Personal   <               I'm not lost, I exploring.
> opinions   <
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lgqv61INNh74@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>
>I just want to prevent possible misunderstanding in my previous response. 
>
>>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>>
>>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.
>
>Thank you for the information. Now, for your information, the prophet
>Joseph Smith thought this understanding over 150 years ago.

From what source do you get that?  In "Teachings Of The Prophet Of
Joseph Smith", compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, there is a speach by
Joseph Smith that says that he ALWAYS taught that they were two separate
GODS!  So how do you get thie doctrine out of that?

>	Note: my response above referred only to the defination of the Greek 
>	      word, heis, and not to Anthony's explanation.
>
>With brotherly love,
>
>		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:33:00 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism

In article <1992Nov18.132411.18047@newstand.syr.edu>,
dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) wrote:
> Christian theists say that God is real.
> Christian theists teach their young children that Santa-Claus is real.
> Some of them even go so far as telling their children that the 
> Easter Bunny is real.
> Since Christians are the children of God what stories has God told
> just to see their happy faces.  Can you say heaven or rapture?
> And what happens when God tells them about the pink invisible unicorns
> that like to hide in the walls of people's apartments, but can be seen by
> wolves with x-ray vision during full moon?!  :')

I don't mind about telling children stories about Santa Claus
and the Eastern Bunny. They are excellent alarm bells for 
a growing skeptical mind.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.125213.535@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!

Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.

Why is it that few people who answer criticism of God by saying that we can't
really understand God, hardly ever seem to mean it?
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:22:45 GMT

In article <5972@balrog.ctron.com> king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:

>
>jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>
>
>
>>God knew that Adam and Eve would cause Original Sin *before* he
>>created them, and yet *he* chose to create them.  Either God
>>blocked his omniscience in this case allowing for either possibility, 
>>or else Adam and Eve didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding 
>>their sin.  By the way, when God created Adam and Eve, what was the
>>probability he programmed into them that they would eat the fruit?
>>50/50?  Is the misery in the world today the result of a lousy set
>>of probabilities programmed into us by God?  Could someone please
>>answer these questions for me?
>
>
>Before? What makes you assume that?  It was only on rare occasions
>that God chose to look ahead (read prophesy).  For example, at Gen 22
>we see the account where God tests Abraham's faith by asking him to
>offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.  God didn't choose to know this 
>in advance.  It was only at the point of Abraham about to plunge
>the sword into his son that he was stopped and God states "...for
>now I do know that you are Godfearing..."
>
>As far as Adam and Eve, their disobedience was inexcusable.  First,
>unlike you and I, they were perfect humans.  As such, they are held
>to a much higher standard than we are.  By the same token, they had
>everything they could possibly want.  Anything they wanted, they had.
>God just asked for one little thing in return.  And that simple
>piddling little test they failed.

1)  Isn't your God defined to be omniscient?

2)  Isn't it interesting that Adam and Eve's sin didn't involve
breaking a commandment or anything, but simply trying to acquire
knowledge.  Should tell you something. . . 

SD
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Truth in topic
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:36:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov21.184129.11977@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes...
>It is very interesting to scan through all the topics addressed on
>this group (misc. religious) and note that overall Christianity in
>its various forms is discussed much more than anything else.

Well, given that the majority of nodes accessing this newsgroup are Western,
and that Christianity is prevalent among Western societies, this is simply a
selection artifact.  If this were a Tibetan network, you might see a different
pattern.

Also, especially in the US, Christian fundamentalists have been trying to 
dictate government policy, which tends to bring about debate about
Christianity's truthfulness.

>Could this qualify it as a "best bet"?

Only if popularity equates with truth.  

>Is there relevance to the fact that Jesus was the most influential
>man who ever lived _by far_, even though we are in disagreement as to
>the type of influence?

The question is: relevance to what?  Besides, if Hitler had killed all but ten
people on the planet, he'd have been pretty influential.  Would that have made
him divine? 

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc