HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:02:27 GMT


(Paul Harvey) writes:

>Notice once again the translation problems the KJV has. The key here is
>that a "completely round" circle of diameter or distance from brim to
>brim of 10 cubits would have a circumference of 31.415926... , not 30
>cubits. This is Pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and
>it is a unit-less constant, so the exact size of cubit makes no
>difference, it could just as well be feet or meters or whatever. And so
>we have just one example of many where the words of the Bible are false,
>thus the Bible is not 100% true. But most of us already know that, the
>Bible is in fact a myth. Still a good myth, nonetheless. But not
>factual.

I posted this previously...did you not see it, or choose to ignore it?


1 Kings 7:23 gives the dimensions of a circular shaped object --
   Ten cubits from rim to rim = diameter.
   Thirty cubits measuring around it = circumference.
   Circ/Diam = pi = 30/10 =3 
   This is supposedly an error because pi=3.14159...

Ever heard of rounding off??
Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One
Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One

Divide two numbers of one significant digit, and how many significant
digits can you keep in the answer?

"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.

Please show the intellectual honesty to remove this one from the lists
of biblical contradictions/errors.


Dave Weaver
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mr. Clippingdale's religion
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:21:08 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Randall Desmond) invites:
  
   Post me a list of questions that you feel must be answered in order to
   decide on the validity of any religion.
  
  (Simon Clippingdale) in his usual admirably witty, yet
  polite way replies:

   1. Are all its claims falsifiable?
   2. Is each of its claims as yet unfalsified?
   3. What is the procedure for modification of the religion and its claims
      in the event that new evidence falsifies certain of those claims?
 
Note that this is akin to demanding music come in
vanilla, strawberry or chocolate.

Apparently, Mr. Clippingdale already has a religion:
scientific empiricism. Merely substitute "theory"
for "religion" in (3) above, and you now have a good
test of any hypothesis whose eventual empirical proof
could be ascertained. Note that (1) above also gets
rid of most "philosophy".

Dano
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:29:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <66994@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-260892164213@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |In article <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
> |Pitts) wrote:
> |> Jesus said unless you repent (change) you will not see or enter the
> |> Kingdom of Heaven.  Repentance or changing one's ways, direction, or
> |> thought is common throughout the Bible, as one turns from false gods
> |> to the One True God.
> |
> |Jesus also said that unless you sell all your belongings and join
> |him you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Also he said that rich
> 
> Kent would you like to quote the passage you reference.  I think you
> will find out that this man loved his stuff and so walked away and
> didn't enter the Kingdom.

My Bible is back home, but as you said, this man loved his stuff
and walked away and didn't enter the kingdom, because he didn't
sell all his belongings and joined Jesus company. Need I say
more about Christianity here in United States.

> |men can't get to Heaven. It is interesting to observe how the
> 
> Also, if you keep reading, YOU will see that Jesus followed this up
> with the statement "With man this is impossible, but with God all
> things are possible," as he responded to this event and his disciples
> question of "then who can be saved."

Is this then a back door to rich people?

> |words of Jesus could be twisted and avoided, especially here in
> |the rich country of USA. In other words some things Jesus said

> You noticed, didn't you, that the rich man was not saved.  Man can
> not do enough to merit salvation, it is a gift of God, SO NO MAN 
> CAN BOAST.

I would call the statement about a typical word twisting!

> |are important, others are, eh, annoying and better not talk about 
> |them.

> I just talked about them.  By the way, Kent, it seems you do a pretty good 
> job of twisting words all on your own.

I'm just stating what Jesus said, man. So follow the words of Jesus,
sell your belongings, give them to the poor, and join him. I support
100% Jesus' statements, this world has too many poor people.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheists
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: [1 Kings 7:23 and Pi], just the warmup for Luke 14:26
Organization: Let's go right for the smoking gun, shall we?
	<adams.714665058@spssig> <fRJfri0@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<1992Aug26.024008.16393@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:38:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.024008.16393@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
<Almost (if not all) arguments against the validity of the Bible are such as
<this...  Let me ask you something:  If I asked you how many miles you had put
<on your car would you tell me 50,000 or 51,254?  If I asked you how much you
<weighed would you say 180 lbs. or 183.6 lbs?  What is the captain always
<telling Data?  To cut out the needless accuracy when the general concept is
<all that is required.  This has nothing to say about the accuracy of the
<Bible.  God has always been faithful to fulfill His Biblical promises, and
<the "damning discrepancies" of the Bible just are not there unless you
<nitpick your way into absurdity.

Oh, all right. I suppose the assumption that your God might have a more
precise understanding of such a universal constant as Pi is asking for too
much. So, perhaps you'd like to nitpick your way out of Luke 14:26? Is that
iron hot enough for you? Please explain the "damning discrepancies" of Luke
14:26. Where is the accuracy of your Bible now? Which translation are you
picking as the exact word? If you ask me, the explanation is fairly obvious.
KJV is an old English translation of letters written in Alexandrian Greek by
people who claim to have heard Jesus or Yeshua speak in Aramaic. If some
inaccuracy can creep in regarding Pi, don't you think some mistranslations
could have occured along this rather complicated path to KJV? If not, how do
you explain Luke 14:26? Do you really think your loving Jesus said this in
Aramaic almost two thousand years ago? Or are you saying that Jesus may not
have been so precise in His choice of words? What is the measure of error in
HATE? How much HATE is OK? Is preaching LOVE and HATE at the same time preaching
a mixed message? Which comes first, LOVE or HATE? Are you going to HATE or
LOVE? How can you follow Jesus if He taught both LOVE and HATE?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15485 alt.atheism:16410
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:07:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sbuckley.715469619@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>Really?  Every Christian I've ever talked to said that one had to accept the
>>"gift" before dying--that the only unforgivable sin was to *not* accept the gift.
>
>  salvation comes in two parts.  jesus died for all of our sins, but we
>must accept that gift for the second part.  this acceptance must occur
>when we're still breathing and able to make decisions.
 


   tHEN (aND rEAD tHIS tWICE iF yOU nEED tO fOR tHE fULL iMPACT:
   tHE gIFT iS nOT fREE.  sALVATION iS oNLY gRANTED tO tHOSE wHO aRE
   wILLING tO aCCEPT iT (aND tHE lOAD oF cRAP tHAT cOMES aLONG wITH
   tHAT aCCEPTANCE).


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: What Questions do folks feel must be answered?
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Folks:

Post me a list of questions that you feel must be answered in order to
decide on the validity of any religion.

Thanks.
Ismail
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mr. Newton's definition
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:50:49 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:

     What books has Tillich published; I'd like to judge his
     credibility for myself.
 
Go to a public library. Check under: Tillich, Paul.

 Are YOU sure what is the modern christian's view towards faith?

No one can say with certainty what a particular "modern christian's
view towards fatih is". In any event, there is no final agreement 
about what any modern christian believes. It is not so 
monolithic as you make out.

You would know this if you had spent any time whatsoever
discovering what modern christian thought is all about,
i.e., if you knew what you were talking about.

You made the point that christian faith prohibited doubt,
you were wrong. 

Also, I never commented on the literalness of the bible one
way or another. I just said that your claims that christianity in
particular and religion in general required blind faith was
wrong. 

 Do you personally think there is proof of god's
 existence?  If so, I'd love to hear the proof.  If not, you are
 an unthinking christian, whether that be a modern or classical one.  
 
Not that it matters to your apparent ignorance, but I do not
think there is proof of god's existence. How that makes me
a christian, unthinking or otherwise is something perhaps
you can explain to yourself, but seems ludicrous to me.

Dano
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:08:44 GMT


jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714450274@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   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

>"provided with eternal life"?  I didn't think a god needed to be "provided"
>with anything...

  jesus was a mortal man who was raised to eternal life.

>> 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.

>I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
>follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
>really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
>members.  Real religions that are in fact loving of their neighbors, etcetera
>(the things Christian religions tend to claim but *typically* aren't), die out
>since nobody's particularly interested in wasting time bowing and scraping to
>gods that may or may not exist and probably don't...  ...flame me if you like,
>these are my opinions.

  there is no reward for a body count of how many people are converted to
jesus.  i don't mean to scare anyone into anything.  and i'm sorry for 
all the unloving christians in the world.  and i've no vested interest
in perpetuating christianity for the sake of it as a social institution.
and all religions are not the same.  please, please don't judge all
christians by the stereotype and certainly please don't judge jesus by 
human failings.

---                          
     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?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15379 alt.atheism:16336
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:37:22 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Aug28.110921.682@digi.lonestar.org> sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>---                          
>>     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?"                   
>
>Stephen,
>
> I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
>god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
>go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
>people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
>creatures.

Perhaps because Stephen is as convinced that God exists as you are
that He doesn't.

God bless,


-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14763 talk.religion.newage:4041 sci.physics:13517
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:37:39 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 <1992Aug25.143041.10878@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes...

>are direct inheritors of the Pythagoreans.  If you take a trip back
>1 century, many physicists felt physics was all worked out.  There were
>a few points floating around, such as PE effect, and some anomalous
>results involving E/M, such as atomic spectra, but they really thought
>they were done (the attitudes seemed to reflect Victorian smugness).
>Then we had a 'revolution.'  

I'm not a historian, but I will take issue with this statement anyway.
Just because one stupid patent officer thought that invention was 
over doesn't mean that "many physicists felt physics was all worked out."
It's very hard for me to imagine any reasonable scientist making this
claim at the turn of the century.  

Can you provide some evidence to support this contention?  How about
a well known physicist who made a statement even slightly resembling
a claim that all that was left was the details?  I don't know of any.

-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:15642 alt.atheism:16542
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Scott G.: Answer this for me...
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:33:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Scott Goehring writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>I know some pretty miserable Christians. 
>
>I was a lot more miserable as a Christian than I am now as a
>non-Christian.  Not all of my improved life outlook is due to that one
>change, but it's definitely an important factor.  A lot of the changes
>that have helped me feel better about myself are incompatible with the
>brand of Christianity (Missouri Synod Lutheranism) I was spoonfed as a
>child.

Tell me something Scott, how did trusting in Jesus for your salvation and
receiving Him as the Lord of your life make you miserable?  You are not
allowed to tell me about the people involved... Only about this simple state
of mind, which is what makes one a Christian.


John M.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:12:41 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Aug27.184034.3946@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <66921@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>
>>I thought I'd give some of the Biblical (NT) references to hell fire.

>The verses you posted actually belong to two quite distinct groups.

Agreed.

However, my point was to counter your point that a literal burning
hell had little (or no) basis in the Bible - it does.  You may 
interpret it one way and another may do it another, but the possibility
and basis is there.

I agree that the second death, which is being cast into the lake of
fire is separation from God.  But the idea or essence of this fire 
is a continual burning - whethere the wicked people (other than Satan, 
and the Beast and False Prophet, I guess) are there forever or not - 
the essence of hell is the same.

>In any event, the simple description of 'Hades' in Luke 16 is very
>different from the popular concept of "burning hell" as well.

I guess you have thrown me with this 'popular concept' statement.
What is the popular concept that you are contrasting here, so I
don't assume what you mean?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unitarian Christianity
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:48:28 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmmmm
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

 wells@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Wells) wrote:
   
   	I would like to know if there is anyone on the net who, like
   myself, adheres to good old-fashioned Unitarian Christianity.

(Young Jeff) replies:

 Is this different than the joint UU church?  I have attended a local
 UU church for the last two Sundays and am very impressed.  Even
 as a professed atheist, I feel right at home.
 
Yes, the UU church is church place atheists can feel comfortable,
I think.

 For 15 years I assumed my views were unique unto myself.  The world
 seems less crazy now though since I have discovered other people who
 share so much of my worldview (belief in God not withstanding).

I agree, this is the importance of a "religious community".
  
 Maybe it's just the church I attend, but I don't feel it is that
 much more Christian than it is Buddist, Hindu, Tao, or nuclear
 physics.  They may focus on Christianity a little more, but
 I think it is only because they acknowledge we live in a J/C
 society and need to know about it to interact with others.

Again, agreed. Remember too, that there is an organization
called CUUPs (Coven of Unitarian-Universalist Pagans).

 The bit about denying the trinity and the universal salvation
 of all mankind is only an artifact of their history.  It was
 simply a stepping stone on the way to further questioning.
 These are simply my interpretations of course.

I agree here also, although you would have a difficult time
finding Rumanian Unitarians to agree with you, I suspect.

   	If you are not a member of a Unitarian Universalist
   Association member congregation, well...all the better. Around here,
   all the "UUs" are ethical humanists, neo-pagans and pantheists, though
   I hear it's different in New England.
 
 I don't know about NE, but I am delighted with the Ohio flavor.

New England, particularly in Massachusetts is where American
Unitarianism started. At King's Chapel in Boston, for example
the service is apparently not all that different from a standard
Episcoplian service.

In any event, UU-ism is creedless, there is no hierarchical,
historical dogma one must adhere to.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:06:33 GMT


---- Hello Dano:
(sfg)

>                                     Never once did God MAKE evil.  never
> once was God responsible for evil's origins.  If indeed God can be blames
>
>If god made everything, and if evil is a part of everything, then
>god created evil.
>
>Once again, it seems you have failed to address the
>rebuttal, for according to your theology:
>
>     god created everything
>     god knows everything past, present, and future
>     god created a satan he knew would "turn evil"
>     thus, god created evil.
>
>IMO, you have yet to show any holes in this logic.
>
>Dan


----  I don't have to poke holes in logic to know that God is not
responsible to evil.  The bible says in many places that nothing but good
comes from the Lord, God, Holy Spirit, etc...   That is proof enough for
me.  I don't go for all the people who say the bible is errant.  In my
opinion, the bible is inerrant in its ideas, and concepts, while the
translation may be a touch skewed.  After all, the translators were only
human. and Humans are not perfect.  

If I listened to everything that MAN had to say about God, and
Christianity, I would NEVER be a believer.  There is a time, in my
opinion, to STOP listening to man, and his silly ideas, and postulations. 
Some things just have to recieved by faith, and that's that.  I say what I
know in my heart.  I don't need any of man's logic to change that.  There
is definitely a place for logic, and knowledge is WONDERFUL.  But, as I
said before, some things can only be taken by faith, and that's that.

God Bless,
Steve.Gross

--
   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,alt.atheism
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:23:50 GMT


>What does _TLJC_ mean?  Does it mean, "The Lunatic, Jesus Crust?"


Somehow, I don't think it means The lunatic.  Why not try something more
in line with Jesus' character, like the love of Jesus Christ.  Really,
insults and pettyness like this are so unbecoming of the authors of it. 
If you have nothing better to do, then try getting a job or a counselor.
(sfg).


--
   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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15351 alt.atheism:16307