HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:31:50 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


 draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes:
>I have but one thing to say in regards to your long-winded discussion of
>space aliens etcetera:
>____ EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE ____

Fair enough, but you must never forget the mindset that you are dealing
with here.

Recall that when the so-called Field Circles started appearing and we were
(apparently) faced with the choice that either:

  1] that the saucer people made them or

  2] local pranksters made them
  
that these people were claiming choice #2 was the outlandish/extraordinary
explanation.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:11:47 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
: :   Throughout the centuries, that particular area of Europe (and indeed most
: : parts of Europe) have been fighting one another using religion and any other
: : excuse to justify their own evil desires. One man's desire vs another's.
: 
: Maybe if these people could think for themselves instead of being
: raised to let their religions think for them, this kind of horror
: could be avoided?
: 
: : [...]
: 
: I agree that these things happen for political reasons.  Religion
: shares the blame though, because it creates a mindset that allows 
: it to happen.

I seem to make a habit of following up my own posts, but it
seems to help to make corrections asap when I realize something
I ommitted.

I should have pointed out here that religion isn't the only 
culprit in this crime.  Governments are to blame when blind 
patriotism is invoked, parents are to blame when children are
taught to obey without question, the media, schools, etc, etc.
are all to blame.  Free and open inquiry must be encouraged to
avoid blind obediency.

-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:47:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

00jdbecktel@bsu-ucs.uucp wrote:
: In file 21555 you are referring to God as a she so you say. WRONG.... It says
: in Genesis that God created man in his own image, so how can God be a woman 
: when it says otherwise in the Bible.                          
: 
: 
:                          Singed 
:                                 Young 
:                                  Ricky

I posted a quick followup before, but the more I think about it, the
more I get the scary feeling that something sinister is going on.

The verse to which you refer is Genesis 1:27. This verse quite
explicitly says that humanity was made in the image of God; male
and female. Sure God is not woman, but neither would you claim
that God was man.

The question is whether God is male or female. Phrased like this,
it is immediately ridiculous. How could God be either?

Looking at the verse you cite -- would you claim that "man" was
made in the image of God, but that "woman" was not?? This is
explicitly contradicted by the verse. In the TEV the verse reads

	So God created human beings, making them to be like himself.
	He created them male and female.

Other translations will say God created man in his own image, but
all translations show that "man" is intended to be inclusive by
explicitly saying that they were made male and female in the image
of God.

So how could you have got this so wrong?

Non-Christians often bring up the spectre of the crusades to show that
Christianity is evil. Christians will correctly point out that the
crusades were a perversion of Christian teaching.

Ricky -- whether you mean it or not, you have just sent out another
perversion of Christian teaching. The verse you cite in fact goes
completely against what you are saying. You are not preaching gospel,
but something very different.

It seems pretty clear to me that there are still people who are using
Christianity as a vehicle to bring about intolerance, repression and
other evils. And you appear to be at risk of being sucked in by them.

Felicitions -- Chris -- not really a Christian, and feeling paranoid.

PS. It is no good refering to file numbers. They are local to your
system, and postings will have different numbers at other sites.
Refer instead to the Message-id: in the header of the article.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: knowledge gained while sitin' on the front stoop
	<1992Sep2.035547.22323@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<Bu0KC0.Fxw@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
	<1992Sep3.230154.8103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<1992Sep4.105815.7329@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:07:42 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
>faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Ha! Ever heard of Islamic Jihad? Ever heard of the Buddhist monks who burn
>themselves alive for causes they feel are right? If THAT'S not "wholistic
>assurance" I don't know what is...!

I wonder if John has ever heard of this most challenging path to enlightenment,
somehow I doubt it. The way it works is the monk assumes the lotus position
and the smile of buddha and the monk nods when prepared for the test, the
ultimate test of one's "absolute knowledge of unseen". An assitant dumps petrol
onto the monk and throws a match. The monk must not move and must not show any
pain, the smile of the buddha must be maintained. If this occurs, the monk
is of course enlightened and leaves this world. If not, the monk feels
tremendous pain and must go through many cycles of rebirth to try again. The
monk only gets one chance at this test per lifetime, so rigorous training is
called for. One starts with a cold shower and goes forward from there. So,
John, does your assurance of absolute knowledge and faith in the unseen
prepare you for this test? Or perhaps you'd like to admit of a somewhat lower
assurance? The test awaits you, pass it and you are assured of enlightenment,
of union with the ONE, but fail and it is proved that your assurance is not
as strong as you believed. If you are Buddhist, you get infinite chances to
pass, as each failure means rebirth and another try. If you are Christian, I'm
not sure what happens. Presumably you only get one lifetime, so if you fail
you fall into the fail bin called Christian Hell and it is there that you
spend eternity, not seeing the one you love. So John, just how assured are
you, absolutely?
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:21:27 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

[I don't have the alt.* groups.]

In article <3nsnn2b@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>How many atheists?  Good question.
>
>Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
>(and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
>weed out "agnostic" views.)

I've heard that about 4% of America does not consider themselves religous or
don't believe in a god or a Supreme God or something like that.  So the point 
is that I've heard 4% and not 2%.

Interestingly, the same info said that about 40% of entertainment types
fall into the category of disbelief in the supernatural.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:43:54 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.715789414@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
>>
>>No man may know the day or the hour....
>>No one knows the day or the hour except the Father, not even the Son, for
>>the Father has not revealed it to Him...
>>This is figurative writing...picking the 'month' and 'year' instead of the
>>'day' and the 'hour' doesn't escape the admonition of Jesus...He has told
>>you that you can't know.

>How can you tell what is figurative and what isn't?  Perhaps the resurrection
>was figurative too?

This is of course the biggest problem with anything but strict literalism
(which has even more problems!)...I freely admit that.  I guess it comes
down to faith in the basic facts....whatever those may be!  Christians have
debated that since the beginning...(Paul vs Peter, for example)

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:26:06 GMT

In article <67893@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep9.164331.15457@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}-In article <67872@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}-}In article <1992Sep8.195107.8340@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}-}|In article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}-}|}In article <1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}-}|}>
}-}|}>Bad news.  The end of the world came and went.  NONE of you are worthy!
}-}|}
}-}|}Regardless of whether anyone of us is worthy or not, we would all know it, as
}-}|}Jesus described in the following passage:
}-}|}...
}-}|}   Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in
}-}|}      the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
}-}|...
}-}|And you MISSED it!!!!
}-}
}-}No.  You didn't read verse 27 very close or so it seems.
}-}
}-}    Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east IS VISIBLE even in
}-}       the west, SO WILL BE the coming of the Son of Man.
}-}
}-}It will be visible, just as the lightning is.
}-
}-To a blind man, though something is visible it will not be seen.  And there
}-appear to be many blind to THE WAY here - including you, apparently.
}
}You know He made the blind see, don't you?

Not all of them.

}I've lost you Mr. Meritt - which THE WAY are you telling me I am blind to?

Pointing has done no good.  You see nothing but the end of the finger.

}-Food for thought:  Notice how there are many claims made about how clear
}-the "word of god" is, yet there are still those who do not see the same
}
}Scripture tells us that things of the spirit are hidden from those without 
}the spirit.

And this is from you, so the conclusion would be that you don't have the
spirit.

}-thing?  What makes you think that this is not just another example of
}-selective blindness, refusing to see what you don't want to?
}
}Scripture also tells us that people are blinded due to thier own desire
}to believe the lie.

The lie the "you'r viewpoint is not special"?  Yup, your desire to believe 
that lie seems to have blinded you to much.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: supercalifragilistic tic tac pros
	<1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> 
	<67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> <d3rns4n.bskendig@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:56:57 GMT

Richard Pitts wrote:
   Mat 24:23   At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
      or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

Brian Kendig writes:
<How is a Christian to know when the Second Coming has happened, then?
<This sounds very Monty Pythonesque -- "Only the true Messiah denies
<his divinity!"  ;)

And, just why is it that your name is Brian? Would that be Brian of Nazareth?
Hey, everyone, Brian Kendig is Jesus reincarnate! Now, oh great Brian, do you
deny that you are in fact our Lord Yeshua?

<Seriously, though -- if someone is so obviously Jesus in his second
<incarnation that everyone believes in him, then that person isn't
<Jesus, according to these passages you quoted.  But if Jesus doesn't
<look like Jesus, how can anyone believe that he is who he is?

It's a Zen Buddhist connection of course. It's the same thing with the 
Buddha reincarnate, he's/she's the guy/gal on the street corner helping kids 
across the street. You can only tell him/her by his/her smile and his/her self 
denile. It makes it sound more religious if I say him/her don't ye think? No, 
that's not a river in Egypt. Now look Brian, he who is in self-denial, I was 
hopping to get some tickets to the game, you think you could pull of just one 
minor miracle for now, for a friend?
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:04:27 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

DAN O'CONNELL   -->  the contractor  writes:

>(ken bell) eloquently provides an example of why some people
>have difficulty with the christian god concept:
>
> Concerning eternal consequences for inevitable acts there is perhaps an 
> even more difficult and fundamental problem, and that is: How can an 
> infinite consequence be metted out for a finite act undertaken with finite 
> and imperfect comprehension of their consequences?  

From DANO:
>Here is yet another example of a central problem I see with
>christianity, or even judaism for that matter. This scenario
>and dozens like it make no sense to me. The heart of the 
>problem lies not only in the situation, but more succintly
>in the "answer" given: i.e., god's will, etc.
>
>Dano


---- I may be misunderstanding you Dano, but are you saying that you are
not a Christian because you have problems with Christianity's center?  Or,
are you saying that you have a problem with the example stated above by
Ken Bell?  If it is the latter, and you have a problem with Ken's
statement, I have to agree.

1)  The bible is a wonderful example of what the punishments will be and
for what things a person will get punished.  It is written by people with
finite minds who also had finite comprehension, FOR people with finite
minds and finite comprehension.  It seems to me that God is perfectly fair
in giving out punishment for what deserves it.

2)  No act is finite, in my opinion.  Everything you do will be accounted
for when you go to the judgement.  I should say we there.  Whether or not
we go to the judgement seat of Christ which will be merciful and kind, or
to the Great White Throne Judgement, we will be accountable for everything
that we do or in that case, did.

Conclusion)  God gave us the instruments we needed to follow his rules. 
We understood completely those rules.  God punishes us if we don't follow
those rules.  Simple.  There really is no question about our "finite"
capabilities.  It is put forth so we can understand it, but some of us
jost don't choose to.


---- As I'm sure yo know, Christianity is based on a certain ammount of
faith.  Since when does any religion not ask you to have at least a LITTLE
faith in what it teaches?  Even Atheists have to have a little faith in
the fact that God does not exist.  Same with agnostics, cultists, etc...

My poin is this.  Without faith, there can be no true belief.  Since when
can a man or woman who HAS TO KNOW every answer before he/she believes,
ever achieve faith, and thus religion of any sort?  As I said, even
Atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc...  Have some small ammount of faith
in the fact that what they are saying is true.

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
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Your Parting Gift
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:49:08 GMT

In article <lb270vINN7ub@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Well, folks I'm packed up and ready to go, I will be driving my
>beat up '76 corolla from idyllic Santa Cruz, CA to the Univ. of
>Chicago on Monday to attend grad school studying: (you guessed it)
>philosophy and theology.

Oh real nice, we educate you and you go off and get the credit.

>I will be off the net for at least a month (save the applause)
>but should get internet/USENET access sometime after the fall
>quarter starts.
>I cannot resist taking this opportunity to let go a few shots
>knowing that I have the advantage of "getting in the last word"
>(at least from my perspective), although of course, you are 
>free to trash me while I'm gone.
>In that spirit, I offer you a brief, yet informative, yet
>speculative, yet totally slanted view of a mythical thread
>in t.r.m.-land, although all quotes more or less resemble
>historical reality.
>Please don't take it too seriously or be disappointed if
>you were/weren't included.

<Standard t.r.m type post deleted>

Not bad, I like it.
Via con dios, adios muchacho, and as always Jah! Ras TafarI!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:05:25 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In your case for instance maybe the Christian view of God's omnipotence
>and free will creates more dilemmas than solves them. If we had
>a similar problem in science, there's an evident need for a better
>theory.

True enough...but the problem here is that (orthodox) Christians are
constrained by the canon of Scripture...a self-imposed, and perhaps
artificial constraint (depending on how you view Scripture's inspiration).
Thus, we are stuck with this view unless we abandon relative orthodoxy.

Paul has to go....as it were.

 -Steve
--
 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,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:48:15 GMT

In article <4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>I find it quite interesting that so many different cultures, widely
>dispersed geographically, end up telling stories which have many common
>elements.

Why is it interesting?

Man tends to create his gods in his own image.  Man also worries about
mortality and about his other limitations.  Myths with gods that are like
men but with fewer limitations are what you would expect; they're not something
unusual that needs explanation.

>Among the hypotheses offered by some historians today is the notion that the
>earth was indeed visited by human-like people from other places. These
>people possessed a higher level of technology and relative 'immortality'. In
>this view, the Bronze Age stories can be taken at face value as a primitive
>people's report of its dealings with a more advanced people.

I was unaware of any historians that offer those hypotheses.  Mind naming
some?
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:30:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <la7b84INN75s@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) wrote:
>  (Paul Harvey) replies:
>  The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
>  should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
>  good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
>  for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's

> Since it was the creator's intent, the creator is responsible.
> Although Adam & Eve may have thought they had "free will", from
> god's point of view, they didn't have since he was omniscent.
> 
> He could have given them the gift of knowledge without
> exacting any price whatsoever, yet as he gave, he took away.
> This could be called capricious behavior.

True. Doesn't all this evidently show that the omnipotense of
God is a false statement. Either God is able to create happiness,
or he isn't. Just now, check out CNN news about the disasters all
around the world, a possible God is not exactly doing a good job.

Cheers,
Kent
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16191 alt.atheism:17177
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:56:08 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

(Kent "Hacker" Sandvik) writes:

 (Paul >Harvey) wrote:
 > Well K-K-K-K-K-(fish called wonda)Ken, allow me to make it even simpler. Whose 
 > definition of Christianity are you using? Makes a big difference, don'tcha 
 > think? What makes you think there is not a universal religion based on the 
 > meaning of a rock? Isn't it all in the eyes of the beholder? 
 
 Apologies, saw the typo of my answer after I posted it. Sigh, this has
 been a rough day.
 
 I ment that we have an understanding about the Newtonian physics,
 however we have thousands of Christian splitter groups defining
 the doctrine of Christianity.

<devil's advocate mode ON>

Well, newtonian physics, much like the hebrew bible, is "old hat".
And certainly there are at least 3,000 physicists positing theories
about how the universe works and what it is. . .

<devil's advocate mode OFF>

Dano

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15927 alt.atheism:16833
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:43:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715476472@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Your assumption would imply that our world would not need huge religious
> >sects based on the original teachings of Jesus, and that RC and similar
> >huge churches are artifacts. You know, they killed people that didn't
> >belong to a church (or the wrong one) 1500 years ago.
> 
>   please leave the red herrings out of this.  we're not talking about
> church history.  we both know that well enough.  what i'm saying is that
> knowing god is not dependent on a church or a social institution.  
> this does not imply, tho that churches as institutions are meaningless.
> they are still relevant for corporate worship, fellowship and admonition,
> among other wonderful benefits.

The are also good for molding out the social rules for how to obey
and worship the God.

Just my last thoughts about this issue, I would actually believe
that Christianity would be real, if we had people that *didn't*
need to attend a special sect, church or organization, they would 
just suddenly realize what is right and wrong, and state it.

I do know of such Christians, but they are a 'dwindling' minority
amongst the organized Christian 'labor unions' :-).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc