HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Life - How? Creation or Evolution
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:53:27 GMT

Since I was out of town for a week, I wasn't able to see the feedback several
people provided on a single quote out of the Jehovah's Witnesses publication
"Life - How did it get here? By Evolution or by Creation?"  But in an offline
conversation with someone, they brought me up-to-date on what I missed.  This
was basically:

  1)  How do I get a copy of this publication?
  2)  I have a copy of the 1985 issue of this book and the quote is different
      from what Steve Peterson says it is.  Is there some later edition that 
      is updated?

==============================================================================
1)  If you are interested in reading this 255 page book, send me your mailing
    address by email at "stevep@cadence.com" and I will send you a copy.

2)  In my library I have the original edition I received in 1985 and also one
    of the latest editions.

   Cited source:  James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" _Discover_,
   October 1980, p. 88.

The first edition read like this:

  "The scientific magazine _Discover_ put the situation this
   way:  'Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist
   Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.
   Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
   growing dissent."


The latest edition reads like this:

    "The scientific magazine _Discover_ put the situation this way
    'Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist
     Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.
     Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
     growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."

The full quote in context(apparently, as I haven't look up the article for
myself):

   The quote in context:  "Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution,
   published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious
   thought and forever changed man's perception of himself.  Now that
   hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
   but it is also being questioned by reputable scientists.
   "Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record,
   there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."

So evidently the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society noticed or agreed with
those who pointed out that the phrase "from the prevailing view of Darwinism"
was important to leave in and they updated the quote in more recent editions.


Steve Peterson
stevep@cadence.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>  he doesn't need it, he deserves it.  worship is extreme gratitude
>to the creator for being created. [my definition :) other def'ns exist]

Okay, then, why does an omnipotent being reward "extreme gratitude", and
punish its lack?   Why does He even care one iota whether you're grateful
or not?

>  because we didn't create reality and everything and require of us
>to acknowledge his creation instead of rebelling and worshipping other
>things unworthy of worship.

Oh, so you agree that God _is_ a vengeful, jealous being?  How does
this jibe with God being "good?"

>  when god kills people in the old testament, he is enacting judgement.

Do you agree with God when He judges infants to be guilty of "crimes"
they could not possibly have commited, and orders their slaughter?

>  god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

That's funny, some other Christian just told me that the OT is _not_
the word of God.  So, where's this autobiography?

>  in this world as it is, we have turned from god and need to turn back
>to him in our free will.

This isn't an answer.  God could make himself unmistakenly known to
all of us.  At that time, we could each decide to become "extremely
grateful", or not.  Free will, right?  Why doesn't God do this?

>  because the punishment of sin is death, we have all sinned and god so
>loved us he sent his only sun to live a perfect life, unworthy of judgement,
>to bear the punishment for us all.

Not necessary.  God is omnipotent.  He doesn't need a figurative or
literal sacrifice of anything (except His own vengeful nature, perhaps)
in order to expiate our sins.

>  some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.

This isn't an answer.  You restated the condition.  _Why_ is this
so?



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: why i no longer hate christianity
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:28:36 GMT

vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713174812@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>> vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>> 
>>>That it worked one way for you does not mean that it cannot work
>>>differently for others.
>> 
>>>I could tell practically the same story you did, substituting
>>>Pantheism for Christianity.
>>  
>>   and i'll respond that jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that
>> nobody can know god but through him.  and we can banter for weeks.
>> 
>>   i don't believe pantheism and subjective reality can get us to know
>> an objective absolute god of creation.  it's as simple as that.
>> 

>I am deluded, then?  Or decieved?

>I know God now, better than ever when I was Christian.  Do you deny
>this?  On what grounds?  Why should I respect your experiences as valid
>if you do not do the same for me?  Simply because you have an ancient
>and obsolete book full of lies and politics that supports you?  

  i cannot deny your experiences because they're yours and not mine.
it seems to me that we merely disagree on one thing: i believe there is
one way to know god that all people can access and you believe there
is more than one way.  from this i cannot try to deny or make irrelevant
you experience no more than you could mine.

>I tell you, I was a Christian, and sought God, and was led by God to
>Pantheism.  I was a Christian, and sought God, and God said, why do you
>seek for me among the works of men?  I am here, for all to see; simply
>look to the skies, and the seas, and the forests, and the deserts;
>worship me in My temples, not the temples of men; worship me by Loving
>me, for nothing else is worship, Loving me and all that I am; Love
>every cloud, every wave, every leaf, every pebble, every living thing,
>for these are my body and blood and soul.

  and what i am saying is that when i left christianity and tried to find
an animistic or polytheistic god it did not work for me because i didn't
feel like i really know god and my life was getting progressively less
worthwhile because of it.  those routes i sought to god didn't work for
me partially because if god is absolute and objective, he's the same for
everyone.  

stephen
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 22 Aug 92 08:14:48 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug20.143818.9202@anasaz> scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>In article <1270@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>
>>And I suppose that Noah travelled the world to verify this
>>information.  Of course, we are assuming that the translations above
>>where truely inspired and accurate representations of the original
>>records of Noah's experience.
>
>Hmm.  If you believe that the OT is Noah's word (or some other human's),
>and not God's word, why even believe that the flood occurred?  Even if
>_a_ flood occurred, why believe it had divine origins?
>
>After all, you've only got the word of some unknown human, and you
>already don't trust _some_ of the description you've been given?
>

I believe that some passages in the OT are the Word of God dictated to
his prophets and other passages are historical accounts.  I also
believe that parts of the OT have been changed (both an purpose and
inadvertently) from the original writings as copies were made to
preserve or distribute the text or to translate into various
languages.  The only way to know what the author intended to say is to
study the passages and come to some conclusion and then to ask God if
we are right in our conclusions (James 1:5,6).  I have not done that
with the story of the Flood, but was suggesting there are other ways
of interpreting the writings on the Flood.  By analyzing the these
interpretations, then asking God, we should be able to find out what
happened or at least what is important for us to know.


-- 
Good-day!

Mark

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:36:05 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>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?

  no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
understand things or help my relationship with the divine.  jesus did.
and similiarly, krishna, buddha, the tao and heaps of gnostic-offered
spirits and spiritual creatures i encountered all failed to bring me to god.
tho there is no shortage of people for whom all those spiritual entities
make a difference.  but i suspect that you'd discount their realities 
as well because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically 
unverifiable as mine.
---                          
     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?"
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:15:20 GMT
	<1992Aug5.170223.13932@oclc.org> <12776@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Aug11.115707.12671@phillip.edu.au> 
	<1992Aug11.171145.8583@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <12903@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Aug12.153735.20852@news.cs.brande

In article <1992Aug12.153735.20852@news.cs.brandeis.edu> 
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>My VERY limited understanding of Hinduism (from an undergraduate course on
>India) says that Brahma, Shiva, the Buddha (according to Hindus), Krisna,
>and a few others are all avatars of Vishnu, the big god.  To decide whether
>or not it's mono- or poly- theism depends on how you view the nine avatars.

Woah there! Buddha is Buddhism, of course, just like Mohammed is Islam and
Christ is Christianity. Did you pass that course? Your knowledge of religion
seems a bit weak, maybe something to work on?

In Hinduism, which most Christians call polytheism, there is ONE transcendent,
of course, there can only be one transcendent. Now this ONE transcendent is
manifested as three forms; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva
the destroyer. Krishna, on the other hand, is believed to be either Vishnu or
Shiva in the human form, much like Jesus as human form of Yahweh. The
similarities between Christianity and Hinduism are striking, but you seldom
see any Christians admiting this. Why? Does it make Christianity harder to sell?
After all, if you believe in Jesus, why not go the next step and believe in
the word of Mohammed who also believed in Jesus? If you don't believe the
word of Mohammed, why do you believe the word of Jesus? Why not return to the
roots or fundamentals of Judaism? Or is it much easier to not think and stay
where you are, in a nice warm place? Is it getting hot in here?

>All I was trying to say in my post is that the concept of one God manifesting
>itself as three persons (still only one God) is not necessarily totally
>foreign to our thinking, as the poster to whom I responded stated.  So, again,
>three persons in the Godhead does not necessarily imply three gods.

Are you saying that Jesus was a person and not a God?

>                           I asked Jesus,
>                     "How much do you love me?"
>                     "This much," He answered;
>                        and He stretched out
>                         His arms and died.

Are you serious here? This is a loving God? He loved you so much He commited
suicide? Please think and then explain. What you have described is not love,
it is a 100% dysfunctional co-dependency. What happened to all those great
free gifts? Having someone commit suicide as a show of love is hardly a free
gift, guilt trip is more like it.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:52:47 GMT

  When I first read this I assumed it was a joke.  Now I just hope it is.

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?

  Nope.  Does this have anything to do with abiogenesis except show it didn't
happen by mixing chemicals in a flask by me?

  Have you ever purchased a lotto ticket and won?  No? Obviously it could never
happen, right?

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

  Gee, what are viruses?  How about bacteria?  Not to mention when oxygen
producing life came about most of the earlier forms were wiped out.

  Funny thing is, I usually hear just the opposite argument: If people developed
from apes, why are there still apes?

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

  Depends how you define life.  As far as hypothesis go, protein would make a
fine molecule for storing genes.  There are lots of different formats that DNA
could have had.  Oh yeah, and RNA.

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

  I dunno.  Even if not you only disprove the "shaking flask" theory of
abiogenesis.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:04:31 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bsxpw5.911@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1246@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
>>these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
>>really discuss points in the Bible.
>
>And that modern day prophet is ... [drumroll please] ... YOU! Only you can
>interpret the written word for yourself, only your beliefs are valid for

Not bad - we (Christians) are a priesthood of believers, I'd hesitate
to say we are prophets.  However, one must recall that the Holy Spirit
is here to teach and guide us in all things.

  John 14:26   But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
      will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind
      you of everything I have said to you.

  John 16:13   But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will
      guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will 
      speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
           
  1 John 2:27   As for you, the anointing you received from him
      remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as
      his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing
      is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

>yourself. This is what it means to be an individual. This is what it means
>to be free. Now, walk that freedom walk and talk that freedom talk. Realize
>the prophet and profit in you. The walls must come down, the era of strong
>central government and strong central church is over. Welcome the era of the
>free, self-thinking, individual. You are number 1, the king is no more!
>
>Be seeing you!

Freedom is not the permission to be reckless - there is still accountability.

  James 3:1   Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my
      brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more
      strictly.

We also have the directive about what we teach and its power.

  1 Tim 4:16   Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them,
      because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

And we have the inspiration of scripture, which was not of man.

  2 Pet 1:20   Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of
      Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
  2 Pet 1:21   For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
      but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If scripture came not by a prophet's own interpretation, should it be
a modern day person's own interpretation?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:05:06 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:


>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
>Flooding does not have to be too substantial to kill a few people,
>especially those who have no believable warning.

Gen 7:19...

     "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains 
      under all the heavens were covered." [NIV]

     "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all
      the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." [NASB]

     "The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high
      mountains under the whole heaven were covered." [NRSV]

Verse 20 says that it went 15 cubits (around 22ft) higher, and reiterates
that the mountains were covered.

 -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: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:13:59 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <13339@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>Steve Gross again promotes Calvinism:
>A logical conclusion of your Calvinism should be stated as: 
>
>	"Be as vile as you like, it will have no effect on salvation; you 
>	can get to heaven anyway.  On the other hand, if you are not destined 
>	for salvation, at least you will have gotten some satisfaction for 
>	actually deserving hell, and maybe even punishing a few of the 
>	'chosen' who will celebrate your eternal punishment." 
>

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.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

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?  If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
>forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around?  What forms of life
>have no DNA in them?  Can you shake a flask of proteins and get DNA?
>     Evolutionism is no more a science than magic.

     Amino acids are everywhere.  Protein molecules are nearly everywhere
     on earth's surface.  DNA and RNA as well.  How could one tell if
     they were created by 'shaking'?

     As far as 'shaking' goes, yes one can 'shake' a flask with the
     appropriate chemicals in it and obtain the building blocks of life.
     Why is it harder to believe that such a process could have happened
     in the much more varied enviroment of a planet?

                                     dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:23:11 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
I wrote:
>}Yo Jim, God wants you to get to know Him, the choice is yours and yours
>}alone.

>I have better taste than to be associated with what you have been describing.

So be it. The choice is yours and you've made it. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14468 sci.physics:13290 sci.chem:3143