HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:38:44 GMT

Gerry Palo (gpalo@digi.lonestar.org) wrote:
: Dale Skiba writes, in part, in response to Peter White,
: 
: >Even minor errors like the Judas contradictions (does it really
: >matter all that much how Judas died) show that this ABSOLUTE
: >DIVINE INSPIRATION is bogus.  At first, I was really disapointed
: >that there were more than a few of these minor errors.  But, maybe
: >it is better this way.  If every word was absolutely perfect, we
: >would never have to think and then our cranial capacity would be
: >totally wasted :-)
: 
: Matthew and Luke both give sketchy details of the fate of Judas, 
: hardly enough to determine whether they are in conflict, not
: with each other, but with what really happened.  Nothing is
: proved either way.

Well, the Acts story is very sketchy, the Mathew story seems to
be not sketchy.  The sketchy Acts story in no way agrees with Mathew.
This is why most people say it is definitely in conflict.

[...]
: This inerrancy doctrine, which may have been useful centuries ago
: to keep people's attention focused on the text, is in our time
: demeaning to the real depth and magnitude of the scriptures. Yes,
: very often an apparent inconsistency turns out not to be an error,
: but to be the touchstone for a new revelation on a deeper level
: (such as the problem of the two genealogies of Jesus, which I
: wrote about in a thread some time ago).

Hey, this sounds interesting, send me a copy of this.  I don't
remember reading this post.

[...]
: Believers who insist on carrying on
: this debate put roadblocks in front of inquiring skeptics who
: might be open if it were not for this medieval nitpicking over
: fine points.

Believers who refuse to debate about anything put even more 
roadblocks in front of inquiring skeptics.  It has been my
experience, if two christians disagree about something they
still usually respect each others opinions.  This should make
skeptics feel more at home.  I have been to places where it
is taboo to debate anything...  I don't think inquiring skeptics
would fee very welcome there.

--
Dale
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.scouting,talk.politcs.misc
From: phill@bohra.cpg.oz.au (Phill Solomon)
Subject: Re: Which God Does the Boy Scouts support?
Organization: Computer Power Software
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:41:50 GMT


>>10710736@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW EDGAR) writes:
>>] In Australia the whole question of which "God" is solved by putting in the 
>>] promise,
>>] 
>>]   'To do my duty to *my* god'
>>] 
>>] which implies that you should believe in a god of any religion.

The Scout promise is ment to be personal, "on MY honour I promise"
therefore the inclusion of the word "my" is not needed.

I better add IMHO !


Yours in Scouting,

Phill Solomon
Secretary - Council for Yarra Batman Area Rovers
Activities - Yehudi Rover Crew
3rd Doncaster West Scout Group.
Victoria Australia.


-- 
Phill Solomon.                              ACSnet : phill@bohra.cpg.oz.au
TODAY IR&D                                  UUCP   : uunet!munnari!bohra!phill
CP Software Export Pty Ltd. (ACN.006640133) FIDONET: 3:633/363 Swinestud 
Division of the Computer Power Group - Melbourne Australia Voice: +61 3 8230222 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:02:57 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov22.192305.23123@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> Mr. Sandvik asks more questions, but still refuses to either retract
> or defend his claim that he is morally sound.  I am forced to repeat
> myself.

Why does this all sound like the recent Presidental election?

> Simply put, because Mr. Sandvik's claim was posted publicly in support
> of an argument on the theme of atheism and moral values, it must be
> pursued in the same forum.  (As Mr. Sandvik is aware, I am picking any
> more specific nits privately.)
> 
> If Mr. Sandvik will simply post a few words such as, "I withdraw my
> claim that I am morally sound," I need say nothing more.  Meaningful
> discussion cannot continue, though, because at present there is reason
> to question whether Mr. Sandvik approaches these discussions with
> integrity.

> I greet with skepticism the suggestion that many Christian have this
> view.  Mr. Lung is the first I have encountered to say anything close,
> and even he did not say much more than something about Attila the Hun
> being atheist.  (Mr. Lung seems to favor using individuals as
> examples, explicitly avoiding generalizations such as the one above.)
> Given the present question about Mr. Sandvik's integrity, I do not see
> any reason to simply take his word for the existence of these "many
> Christians."

So we could finally start doing some serious discussion. Great! To
continue, what do you think are the core issues when moral values
break apart amongst God fearing Christians? A good example is 
the infamout "Donner Party" incident that happened in California
1846. I could refresh your memory if you are not sure about 
this incident. Actually, this will lead back to the core issue
of Christians provided food and shelter, but more about this later.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:12:31 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov15.204437.27662@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>As a consequence of feedback by David Hatcher, let's try again, 

Might as well, because your previous attempt never materialised here.

>In article <11506@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>...in the Bible zillions of people are deprived of life in a
>>violent fashion for no fault whatsoever, with the approval of the
>>deity or in fulfilment of a direct command of its.
>
>In ekr style...WRONG! using the *loosest* possible definition of fault...

Which is what?

>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?

All the firstborn Egyptian boys.  All children, in the flood.
(Drowning in the flood counts as dying in a natural disaster if there
is no sentient being running the flood, but if there is one, it
amounts to being killed by that being.)  All women and children of
Sodom and Gomorrah.

All male (regardless of age) and non-virgin female Midianites (Numbers 23,
I think).  All inhabitants of Rabbah and, we are told, all other Ammonite
cities (1 Chronicles 20).  (Slaughtering the entire population of a
conquered city is mass murder by any but the most barbaric standards.
The Israelites in the Bible do it all the time.)

The two companies of soldiers whom one of Yahweh's crazy prophets
burned to death.

General Uriah the Hittite.  (Okay, Yahweh said he didn't approve, but
that was obviously nonsense, seeing that David wasn't punished.)  Oh,
and while we're at that: David and Batsheba's first son.

Shall I go on?

Then there are people killed for some ridiculous faults, such as
teasing Yahweh's prophet or collecting firewood on Saturday.

-- 
 `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: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:47:22 GMT

I notice that many of us get into intellectual arguments and debates
with nonbelievers.  They can be very unfruitful and often useless.  It is important that when we talk to the unbelivers that we speak to their hearts and not to their mind, "for the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law nor can it do so"(Romans 8:7-8).  Instead we should pray that the Holy Spirit would speak through us to minister to the needs of others.  Often when the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus a question he usually didn't give a direct response to the question, but addres



sed the motives in their hearts for asking the question.  Next time an athesist asks you to provide proof of God's existence, tell him/her to ask God to provide the proof.  If some one sincerely wants to know if God is real, they will ask God from the depths of their heart to reveal Himself, and He will. However, some really don't want to know God so they will never bother to ask Him.  Also, always remember that your words alone will not draw any one to Christ, but the Spirit of the Lord.

"My message and my preachings were not with wise and persuasive words, but with 
a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's
wisdom, but on God's power." (ICorinthians 2:4-5 NIV)  
 
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come form the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (ICorinthians 2:14 NIV)  

Rod
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21779 alt.atheism:21847
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:56:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <adams.722381228@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>> 
>>>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>>> No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'
>>> 
>>>>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 )?
>>> 
>>> Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>> 
>>>  -Steve
>>
>>How do YOU know that?  Prove it.
>>
>>Sue
> 
> Being as the existence of heaven and hell are unprovable, that particular
> part is certainly unprovable.
> 
> Being as the existence of the soul is unprovable, that too makes the above
> unprovable.
> 
> But, if we take the Bible as the basis for the argument, then the statement
> stands.  Man was the only creature created in God's image and with a soul.
> 
>  -Steve
> --

But that is just YOUR opinion and belief.  Those of us who are not Christians
think otherwise.

Sue
>   The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                          -------------------
>    adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>    Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.235001.25025@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Under any reasonable definition of morally sound, most people are morally
>>sound.  The default assumption, then, is that someone is; they may freely
>>argue based on it, and it is up to you to prove them wrong, not the reverse.
>
>I certainly agree (with that latter sentence -- the first is
>debatable, but no matter).  Mr. Sandvik's claim that he is morally
>sound is not unreasonable, though rather bold, and the burden of proof
>is in this instance best borne by the skeptic.  For precisely this
>reason my first words were a refutation by counter-example,
>     I must question the accuracy of [Mr. Sandvik's 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.

I don't think "a morally sound person acknowledges errors which are pointed
out to him".

Perhaps it might be more reasonable to say "a morally sound person acknowledges
an error if it is pointed out to him and if he recognizes it as an error".
Of course, it could quite well be that if he has made an error, he does not
recognize it as such, in which case no moral failing is implied.

I suppose that if you can prove that Kent doesn't acknowledge an error _but_
he _does_ recognize it, you may have a point there.  But I think that proving
that someone recognizes an error is a fairly hard thing to do.

Certainly "well, my argument makes the error so obvious that nobody who
listens to my argument could _possibly_ miss it" is not such a proof.
--
"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)
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:21:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



Jack E. King writes:

>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.

Your condemnation of Adam and Eve is way too strong. I am not sure what it 
means to be perfect. However, we know that they did lack one thing, that is 
the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore one can make a case that eating from 
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a sin as you and I commit.
We do know good from evil, they did not. They didn't know if it was good or evil
to keep/break God's law. Yes, they did know of the consequences, but they didn't 
know if it was good or bad to die.

Yes, Adam and Eve did violate a law and suffered the consequences, but it was not 
a sin in the same way as you and I sin. 

With brotherly love,

		Frank

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Truth in topic
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 18:41:29 GMT

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.

Could this qualify it as a "best bet"?

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?

Just wondering...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.164827.13974@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes...
>  
>    ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
>>The reason I ask, it has occurred to me that there could be a secret society
>>serving the functions of a denomination among these people.  Otherwise, how do
>>we account for the great uniformity of teachings among them?  
> 
>---- The bible is the main reason.  So called "Born-again" Christians commonly
>profess the same ideas and the same doctrines because there is only ONE 
>definitive work on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and salvation 
>through his sacrifice.  To be sure there are many who pervert and profane 
>the writings of the bible, but you make no mention of those people.
>(sfg)

Of course, claiming the Bible as the reason for the uniformity of teachings
among so-called "born-agains" sounds great, but this explanation doesn't hold
water for a number of reasons.

First, history demonstrates that many different doctrines can be supported by
appeal to various parts of the scripture depending on which verses are given
emphasis.  This has caused the factionalization of the Christian world into
many different "denominations."  To the Bible BY ITSELF is insufficient to
explain the amazing uniformity of doctrine amongUUongUUo

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21710 alt.atheism:21777 talk.philosophy.misc:2547
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:53:55 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

>In <dpn2.29.720591052@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>>In article <Bx0pJo.L4u@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>>>Our preoccupation with immortality comes from the will to live.  No
>>>one between the ages of 15 and 25 (the reproductive peak) believes he
>>>will ever die.  I know.  I was there.

>>Err...I'm 18, and I know that I'm going to die. Sweeping generalizations are 
>>rarely correct.

You may know it, but few 18year olds believe it in the same way as, say, a 
38 year old (eg me).  You have to come very close to death at 
least once, preferably several times, before you actually start to live as 
if there is a time limit on your personal survival.  You won't even 
understand this point until....well until you understand it really.
A few really nasty car crashes or diseases may help you get there, or maybe 
having a friend die in the next room at the age of 20 would do it.

I don't think many people get really preoccupied with immortality until they 
fully realise they will die someday.

I have a book on Taoist alchemy which implies that it is possible to become 
truly immortal, but only if you have never ejaculated.  Bit late for me.....

  From the UK phone book Yellow Pages:  BORING - see Civil Engineers   

  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
  D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk                                          fax 6040
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21874 alt.atheism:21906
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:38:59 GMT

In article <fVs9KXt@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.235036.27187@digi.lonestar.org> 
>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>The argument over whether Christ or the Gospels or Paul state authoritatively
>>that Christ was the Son of God is less interesting than the way in which
>>Christ himself approached the issue.
>Jesus spoke in Aramaic and we don't have a record of his speaches in
>Aramaic so we have no idea what he himself actually said. Case closed.
>For all we know, the Christian gospels in Greek may have been written
>or edited by Paul and so we are dependent on Paul's history of Jesus
>since there are no other accounts of Jesus, if he even existed as an
>actual historical figure.
What is this obsession of yours with Paul? I think we can say pretty
safely that he didn't edit or write the Gospels, since they
are usually dated well after his death. Moreover, it would be
rather strange to have a single author edit four such disparate
documents. You really should study some modern NT criticism before
you say such inane things.
-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: women's ordination conf.
Summary:  but why are *male* priests OK?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:59:27 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Keywords:  priesthood, gender

In article <1e79h5INN5g6@coral.bucknell.edu> sjsup@bucknell.edu
(stephen sup `94) writes:

>I would be interested in some verses supporting the ordination of women.

Well, *I'd* be interested in some verses supporting the ordination of MEN.
As far as I know, there *aren't* any.  The whole conception of a Christian
priest (other than in the metaphorical usage of Hebrews, where Christ is
named our great high priest after the order of Mechizedek) is purely a
matter of tradition.  And it then becomes a question of whether this
tradition of exclusively-male priesthood is more than _adiaphora_.  I am
a member of the Episcopal church, and approve of the ordination of human
beings as priests.  But there seem to me only the barest grounds in the
texts to support this -- I can understand the more Protestant position
that rejects priesthood of the Orthodox/Catholic/Anglican kind altogether.

(NOTE: verses about selection of "presbyters" and deacons, and about the
installation of bishops=overseers, do NOT address the issues at stake in
the ordination of priests or bishops in the "Catholic" sense of the term;
there's no reason to believe that limitation of these roles to men [if any
limits existed, which is not certain] was anything but accomodation to
the surrounding cultural context, just as the "house lists" in pastoral
epistles are cliched summaries of standard Roman moral prescriptions.)

What seems to me incontrovertible is that, if we are talking aout an
"order" called out of humanity into a special ministry of Christ, then
it MUST be beyond dispute that in Christ there is neither male nor
female, Greek nor Jew, free nor slave. There is the verse you need; it
is Paul writing in Galatians, 3:27:  "All baptized in Christ, you have
all clothed yourselves in Christ, and there are no more distinctions
between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you
are one in Christ Jesus."  How can anyone after this PRESUME to make a
distinction?  As the early church ordained slaves, even to bishoprics,
so must we ordain women.

The only argument I have heard against the ordination of women is that
priests "represent" Christ and "therefore" must men.  But by that kind
of "logic" I cannot for the life of me see how a male incarnation can
be relevant to a woman, if only a male can "represent" Incarnate God.  If
there is female exclusion in the priesthood, how can there be female
inclusion in the Kingdom of Heaven?

What the hell has a penis got to do with the ministry of eucharist?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			Inflict Thy promises with each
mls@panix.com				Occasion of distress,
					That from our incoherence we
					May learn to put our trust in Thee
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc