HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: Predestination  To Mr. Mueller
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:34:36 GMT

mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:
>I have always wondered about the rationale for predestination.  It would
>seem that if our free will had no bearing on salvation, then
>what is the point of 90% of the NT?  Evangelism has no point, because no one
>can of their own accord choose God.  All Jesus', John's, Paul's, etc. sermons
>on "follow me" and "repent" and indeed all the missionary journeys
>described in Acts have no meaning.  They are useless at best if those
>who are being preached to really have no choice.  And for Jesus to say
>such things while knowing that salvation was not a choice we could make
>seems very mocking.  I have a hard time accepting a teaching that purports
>to be derived from Scripture when it makes pointless many of the other
>commands (like the Great Commission) found within.
>
>Ernest Mueller

There is nothing mocking about what Jesus or any other NT writer said Mr.
Mueller.  Rather, it is consistent.  Jesus clearly says in the bible that
we are the instruments through which the world will hear his message.  He
can die but once.  If we don't tell people the message, then God's word
cannot act on their heart to spark the salvation process.  It is
reasonable to assume that God commanded us to go and tell all the world,
because through us as a medium of sorts, he could reach everyone he
intended to reach.  Thus, letting us feel needed by following the will of
the God who saved us.  Pretty happy too.

I'm sure that God could do something miraculous so that everyone would
become saved, but where is the fun in that?


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:32:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

mxr@neptune.dsc.com (Max "Numbing Terrible Omission" Rible):
>Eventually, the time travel corporation noticed that the
>vast majority of people at the crucifixion were tourists... oops...

In a similar vein, Robert Silverberg's "Up the Line" has what they
refer to as "the crucifixion paradox":  Why, given the popularity
of that particular tour, are the surrounding hills never jammed with
tourists dressed as shepherds?

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   If you're going to write, don't pretend to write down.  It's going to be the
   best you can do, and it's the fact that it's the best you can do that kills
   you! -- Dorothy Parker

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul28.180329.4995@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:01:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.180329.4995@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

   In article <LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

   > If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

   Laura, are you for or against the purple dancing jellybeans on the dark
   side of Saturn?

What does a purple dancing jellybean on the dark side of Saturn have to do with
whether one is for or against God?  You are taking a tangent that you will have
to explain!

   > This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
   > respect to the bible and JW organization. Everything made sense and was
   > clear. There were no confusion involved. The fact that everythings around
   > us had a creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even
   > bigger things (e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

   Unfortunately, you have inferred properties of a wide class of objects,
   such as this planet, by generalising from the (truistic) property of
   man-made objects that they have been made by man, without establishing
   that there exists an overall equivalence which is adequate for that
   generalisation to be made.

What?  How hard is to the evaluate in your own mind the complication involved
with making a computer vs. make the earth?  So just because one does not
understand one should therefore conclude that the existence is nul.  In my
opinion, not a very logical thing to do.

   A logically equivalent argument is that since the top of a desk is
   flat, so must the earth be. It simply doesn't follow because no general
   equivalence between desktops and planets has been demonstrated.

Nope.  Not a logical argument or equivalence.  We were not talking about its
properties; we were talking about its existence (how it got here).

   > Inconsistent? No! Would it be inconsistent to trust the theoretical
   > findings of physicists, engineers, chemists, etc., after their theories
   > have been proved?

   Short answer: yes.

   Long answer:
   It would be inconsistent, having developed a theory based on evidence,
   to declare that the theory *is* correct and that any conflicting evidence
   which comes along must be wrong if it conflicts with the theory.

   This is *precisely* what you do, and precisely my criticism of it.

I see your point.  However, this "conflicting evidence" must be substantiated
first before it is considered conflicting.  Is this not true?  Have not the
theories been questioned and yet remained correct?

No proof has been substantiated for me to even consider it conflicting with what
the bible says!

   Cheers

   Simon

Regards,
Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:47:05 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
: 
: > Nowhere in the Bible does it say the homosexuality is a disease.
: > Yet the
: 
: Your ignorance is showing again.  It does list it as a sin, along
: with many others.  If you choose to disagree about the validity
: of the Bible, fine, but don't pretend that it's not in there.
:
: > Pope calls it an "objective disorder" and many fundamentalists
: > simply froth at the mouth over the thought of having to share the
: > planet with such people.  Claiming that the Bible doesn't say it
: > and that many Christians
: 
: I've never met such a frother, myself.  

I've met such frothers, they exist, and some are violent.  They belong
in the same category as all other people who beleive that it is
justifiable to harm other people in the name of religion (Nazi's, the
crusaders, etc).

: I have met some pretty angry victims of child molestation, by
: homosexuals.  They might get close to that angry, on a bad day.

I've met some pretty angry victims of child molestation by
heterosexuals.  In fact, the vast majority (probably about 90%) of all
crimes are committed by heterosexuals.  This obviously means that
heterosexuality is evil.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I guess you guys got
Rosemount Inc.                                |BIG MUSCLES from doing too
                                              |much STUDYING!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:43:40 GMT
 <12394@inews.intel.com> <1992Jul22.045741.12128@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <l6r73oINN8d4@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: Argus Computing, San Diego, CA
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <l6r73oINN8d4@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR] writes:

> >[ on various translations of the Bible: ]
> 
> I read somewhere about the "Anchor Bible" and I haven't seen
> it mentioned in this thread; it was recommended as ~the~ 
> reference work for scholars. As I will be attending seminary
> in the fall, I suppose I could wait, but I wanted to know if
> any of you had heard of it, and how large it was. . .

Well, it's twenty or so $20 volumes so far, and they haven't published
the whole Bible yet. I have a dozen or so of them, and I've found the
Anchor to be sometimes a definitive scholarly work, and sometimes a 
waste of money. Some volumes have excellent notes and wide ranging
scholarly opinion, and others are almost completely biblical text only.

Norm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman R. Kraft 			   INET  : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
Senior Partner				   UUCP  : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
Argus Computing 			   GENIE : N.KRAFT3
San Diego, CA				   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:50:00 GMT

From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>> 
>>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>>> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
>>
>>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
> 
> Ok, Suzanne, Prove this one.

Scripture itself tells us that there were many other signs as well, "signs not
recorded here".   And those were merely during the days of biblical times.
Still, we need not even look to biblical times for miracle cures by Jesus which
have not been recorded in the bible.   History is full of such cures and signs
at places like Lourdes, France, not to mention cures and signs so close to home
as to touch one's own family, including my own, and probably that of every
Christian family at one time or another.

See whatcher missin', Keith?


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:05:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul28.210048.23047@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
>(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
>> no longer believes that Jehovah exists.

> How does that follow?  If, in fact, Jehovah does exist, then Corey's
> disbelief certainly could be regarded as a stand against Jehovah.

Well, I reckon that the phrase "making a stand against Jehovah" implies
a rather more active position than one of mere disbelief. And whether or
not Corey is taking such a stand seems to me to be unconnected with
whether or not Jehovah actually exists, but a function merely of whether
Corey personally *believes* that Jehovah exists. Just IMHO.

> Dave Weaver

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine (was Re: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:29:16 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <2A74069B.5185@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>[ Please direct followups appropriately; I took a best guess,
>  but I don't get talk.religion.misc, so E-Mail if you like ]
>
>According to ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith):
>>"According to your religion, only a Jehovah's witness can be saved"
>>"Yes, that is our teaching".
>>"And according to the Bible, only 144,000 people are to be saved"
>>"Yes, this is also according to our teachings".
>
>Actually, it isn't.  144,000 will have the reward of life in heaven.
>Those rewarded with earthly life have no fixed number.  Thus Witness
>doctrine is consistent with human free will.
>
>>"But, there are 2,000,000 Jehovah's witnesses."
>
>There are more than 4,000,000 now.

Maybe the Jehovah's witnesses own a timeshare in heaven.  The 4,000,000
rotate vacation time there in lots of 144,000.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: JW and blood
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:39:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.160737.15146@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >  Do you have references?  Of course, the real argument is about what is
safer,
> >not what doctors prefer.  I am asking out of curiosity.
> 
> 	I think Denton Cooley has said it.

  That isn't much of a reference.  I don't even know who Denton Cooley is, much
less where he might have said it, in what context, etc.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SLOW DOWN !!
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:48:21 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul24.211237.28459@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

>In every article posted on this group concerning my original post that
>HOMOSEXUALS ANYWHERE ARE WRONG, there has been nothing but arguing and
>bickering.  We are acting like little children.  I am sorry now I even
>posted the thing.

If heterosexuals would just be happy being themselves, bisexuals happy
being themselves, and homosexuals happy being themselves, and everybody
happy when everyone else is happy, then posting articles like you have
done would not be necessary.

Neither would exclusive and psychologically-damaging religious pronouncements.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:38:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:


>(Steve Adams) writes:
>> I am pro-choice.  I object to abortion on religious grounds, 
>> yet refuse to impose my religion on anyone else. 

>(Steve Adams) further writes:
>> The issue is just not as clear cut as say murder, or even pollution to 
>> use your example ...   There is NO agreement in society about the
>> personhood of unborn children.  Until this happens, we'll continue to 
>> have these disagreements.

>I agree. But lets consider another example, maybe a better parallel to this 
>situation, commercial logging in the habitat of the spotted owl. There is 
>complete disagreement in society as to the morality of this.  Does that 
>therefore mean that those seeking to shut down this logging are imposing 
>their morality on the loggers?  Even though I may consider this a despicable 
>practice, I should not try to stop those engaged in it?  Again, in good 
>conscience, shouldn't one actively pursue the elimination of a societal 
>practice he/she considers wrong?

The issue with the spotted owl, or any life-form which cannot, under our
system, exert its own legal rights is always tough.  The situation with the
owl is much simpler.  It already is a alive.  The question is whether or
not it gets to stay that way.  Laws protecting owls are better compared to
laws preventing child labor.  

Additionally, it has begun to come to our attention that we cannot continue
to abuse nature and go unscathed.  Since it appears in the best interest of
society at large to protect endangered species, we do.

Restraint is applied to a segment of the population for the betterment of
society as a whole.  In order to do this, you have to demonstrate that a
practice is damaging to society as a whole, or that an individuals rights
are being violated.  

There is no direct proof that abortion hurts society, nor does an abortion
violate the rights of any person as defined under our laws.  Unless and
until the unborn child is granted these rights, then abortion must continue
to be legal in our system.

The whole point here is that we have to separate our personal, religious
opinions from our legal ones.  Christians, at least, are instructed to do
this in Romans 13.  We are to oppose laws when they force us to personally
violate God's laws (Acts 4 & 5), but other than that we are to obey the law
of the land.

 -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: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:59:07 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
>In article <22557@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>>FYI Jesus HATED every sin not excluding homosexuality.  
>
>Lets pretend for a second that there is no question about the existance
>of god. 
>
>How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 
...the same way we would know that anything else is a sin.
If sin is a separation from god and homosexuality departs 
from this god's design specifications on us humans, if we
reflect his image, then this behavior departs from him.
By the transitive property, it is sin.  Or you can look at
Levitican laws if you respect them as being god's word.

>How do you know that its ok to not keep kosher?
I know that staying focused on this god (ie worship) is my
main priority.  Otherwise, it would not be right to call him
my Lord.  

>How do you know its ok for women to evangelize (sp?)
I don't.  What is our criteria for what is ok and what is not ok?

>Don't tell other people that a passage applies to them when you conviently
>ignore the commandments only paragraphs away.
Why not?
What paragraphs are you talking about?
What is a commandment to you anyway?  What do you think was the
purpose of these commandments?  What is the purpose of laws?  Why do
we have judges?

>>It was the pain
>>                ^^^^^^^^^
>>of sin for which he sufferred on the cross.  Why continue to embrace any
>>sin, it hurts Him?  Repent!  ...and not in vain.  Is it hypocritical to
>>accept Him and then wholeheartedly continue to forsake what He did on 
>>the cross?
>
>It is hypocritical to eat pork and cheeseburgers while driving gay
>teenagers to suicide for there "sins".
Sorry.  I don't see the hypocriticism here.  You can drive any
sinful anybody to suicide for their "sins."
But suicide is not necessary.  Someone already died for their "sins."
Suicide becomes inevitable however if you don't let that someone
else die for those "sins" because then no one can pay for those
sins except you by your own death.  No one is sinless and cannot
be tied in with this concept that you've brought up--not even me.
That is one reason why I've accepted that someone as my Lord.

It is hypocriticism for any sinner to embrace his sin and to call
god his lord.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:16:54 GMT

<sbuckley.712393751@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) said:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>true.  but that book would no longer be the bible.  it would be santa's
>>scriptures which i would disbelieve in as much as i disbelieve in hindu
>>[or any other religion's] scripture.  
>
>>Why? And what makes you think Yahweh/Madonna/Jesus scriptures are the one true 
>>path? What if God turns out to be Saint Nick? Why risk it? He brings free gifts
>>every winter solstice, why not just accept these gifts? Or are you just being 
>>didactic and following the teachings of Luke 14:26?
>
>  disregarding the luke 14:26 red herring, i'll say that the bible is the
>one true path based on ten years of studying different philosophies and
>spiritualities from all over the world that claimed to explain much of the
>workings of the world.  all of them failed me in that they either couldn't
>answer all my questions or substantiate any meaning in life.  the bible
>answers all my questions, and through it i found meaning in life when every
>other avenue of exploration utterly failed me and i was left void of
>any purpose in life.

I'd be interested in hearing what your questions were.  It didn't answer
any of mine, but then I only studied it for 5 years, in three different
faiths.  Simon puts forth a very fair comparison which you have been
unable/unwilling to grasp:  You have no more substantiated evidence for
your god's actual existence than he does for Santa's actual existence.

If you met someone who wanted to tell you all about their invisible friend
"Pablo" who talks to them, does nice things for them, is going to save
their soul, and of course, is going to send everyone else to hell...
you'd probably move quickly away from them and/or call the authorities to
get this person off the street and into a mental health facility (at the
very least you probably wouldn't want your children around this person).
But, change the name from "Pablo" to "Jesus" and you'd probably invite this
person into your home.

And you don't even see this as being logically inconsistent.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.