HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Is Satan evil ? part II
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:36:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.162047.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

   Come on all you fundementalists! i am still waiting for evidence for the evil
   nature of Satan vs. the apparently good nature of god.wheres the proof?
   the christian god has done so many horrible things,and apparently will 
   continue to do so ,if you take the bible literally.it all boils down to the
   bible says Satan is evil.but didn't believers write it? I've read mein kampf,
   it doesn't convince me there is anything wrong with jews.
   If the hold spirit or whatever you want to call it fills you with such wisdom
   and knowledge,why can't you give me a rational answer to any of my questions?
-------
Well, I'm not exactly a fundie, but give me a few starter questions and I'm
pretty sure that I can keep you busy for awhile. :)
-------
   My morality is simply based on trying to enjoy life,whilst simultaneously
   attempting to make other people happy as well.that automatically draws me
   to feminism,atheism,a personal crusade to remove religion if at all possible,
   etc.I don't need any super-powerful entity coming along telling me what to do.
   who does?He/she/it can naff off,my personal morality is working.
   bits of christianty are o.k. or harmless,other bits are crap e.g. the way women
   are thought of,the demand for worship,the infinite punishments our ever kind
   god inflicts on our species,etc.
-------
     Aaaah.  So, you don't like being told what to do...
     Your morality, doesn't seem too far from Christ's.  He didn't mind
enjoying life while at the same time serving other people and helping them
enjoy life.
     Who says, though, that your thinking is better than anyone else's?
He has an order to things and value system, but what makes yours better?
-------
   If the amazing "beauty" of the universe somehow convinces you a god created
   it,how is it possible to believe the cristian god did it,when it is such
   a manefestily hideous being?

   l.l.a.p.
   stephen botha,christchurch,new zealand.
-------
Hideous?  In what way?  Oh, you must mean punishing people who like to kill
people.  Or, at least speaking out against what He thinks is wrong (which
is what you're doing, isn't it?).
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:28:38 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>In article <adams.722186101@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>>
>>And as for God lying,
>>that is, by Christian definition, impossible.
>>
>
>  By whose definition?  Didn't you mean god's definition?

Same thing, non? ;-)

 -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
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:09:35 GMT

In article <adams.722275016@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>>>I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.
>>>I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
>>>know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?
>>>But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
>>>the original poster - through salvation.
>>And what if I specifically want my somewhat insane pit bull Cujo?
>
>Take it up with God! ;-)
While I agree that the scenario itself is bogus, I'm quite serious.
What happens if if my idea of how heaven should be is incompatible
with someone else's idea?
-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: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Keywords: innocence, blameless, hypocrisy, selfish
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:58:53 GMT

In article <11652@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>On the other hand, in many of the cases I cited I would even dispute
>the "seemingly".  There is a certain age below which you are not in
>the position to commit a crime, for one.
What age is that?  What if someone is mentally retarded?  Who is not
mentally retarded [seriously!] ?  Since mental retardation is actually
quite relative, I wonder if it is really possible to draw a line in 
this fashion.  I'd trust some infants more than I'd trust some overgrown
politicians.

>Or take Uriah the Hittite.  I can't be sure that he had never
>committed a crime in his life.  But even if he had, he wasn't punished
>for that.  He was sent to his death for having an attractive wife.
>That's why I say that he was a victim of murder.
Yep.  I think he is a victim of murder, adultery, lying, and so-on and so-on
and...wait...
    Create in me a clean heart o God, and renew a right spirit within me.
    Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your holy spirit
    from me.  Restore to me the joy of your salvation; and uphold me,
    with a right free spirit.

    That sounds like repentance--something Peter did but Judas did not.
    They both betrayed Jesus.

>>>Ever heard of presumption
>>>of innocence?  It is one of the major principles of Roman law.
>>But is the law flawless?  I mean does it *work*?  I think it fails
>>often and miserably.
>
>True.  Which is not in itself a reason to dismiss it, unless you can
>suggest a better alternative...

I suppose it is better than presumption of guilt.  But what do I know?
I like Jesus' purported idea:
    Let him who is faultless cast the first stone of punishment. 
    [or something like this!]

How you actually implement is beyond me at the moment.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:31:11 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.162515.14233@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov22.193153.23239@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> >> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >> >We either have a situation where
> >> >a) Human beings with limited minds don't understand anything at all
> >> >concerning the holy trinity
> >> >or
> >> >b) the trinity concept is clearly understandable as a doctrine for
> >> >finite minds
> >> 
> >> Clearly this is a false dichotomy.  Among the other possibilities is,
> >> for example, "Human beings understand a thing or two about the
> >> trinity, but not everything."
> 
> >Interesting, so if you state this, are you then sure which parts
> >human understands, and which ones not?

> Do not misunderstand what I have written.  I have no idea to what
> extent and with what accuracy humans can understand the trinity.  I
> just want to clarify that there are more options that the two
> provided.

So then you also have the burden of showing the optional cases.
I hope you are not Gnostic, neither belong to another non-
traditional Christian sect, because then you are in trouble :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:16:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

> In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
> >Evolution is a theory, nothing more. It doesn't make much sense as a 
> >theory. Creation is far easier to believe than evolution.

So the ease of belief is nowadays an important criterion? So that
also implies that belief in Santa Claus is far easier than Creation,
that would imply something profound, eventually?

You might as well believe in a flat earth --  that is far more easy
than believing in a round one.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:44:26 GMT

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov17122722@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.001359.21834@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>   Do you have a real argument to propose?
>-------
>I don't believe you got up this morning.  Prove that you did.  Or, maybe 
>you only believe you got up this morning, and this is all a silly dream.
I'm not arguing that I got up this morning. Presumably you are arguing
that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. However, I could provide
the sorts of proof that are generally considered sufficient in science
that I woke up this morning--pictures of me at my workstation, time
stamped EEGs, time stamped polygraphs, that sort of thing to prove
it in the usual scientific fashion. I doubt you can do the same for
any of the claims that Mr. Hudson is making.

>   Whether Peter wrote "1 Peter" is in itself debatable.
>   -Ekr
>-------
>So.  Don't skirt the issue.  Address what I Peter says, regardless of the
>fact that Peter did write it. :)
You're begging the question. It only follows that Peter believed what
1 Peter says if it is shown that Peter wrote 1 Peter. Since this
has not been shown, I do not need to show that 1 Peter does not
indicate a belief in resurrection to show that it does not logically
follow from 1 Peter that Peter believed in resurrection.

-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: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:46:39 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

In article <Bxu7M9.MM1@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>lungtt@gus22.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>
>>In article <Bxs8r4.3LD@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
[...]
>>>	This is were the notable differance comes in. People do not 
>>>throw their lives away for a lie, when the know that it is a lie.
>
>>I think it is important to emphasize that this argument can not get
>>too far.  But maybe this should be spelled out.
>
>>At best, it can only categorize these guys in a light similar to the
>>truck bombers of the Marine barricades in 1982.  
>
>	Not precisely. The suicide truck bombers were willing
>to give their lives for what they believed in. They had no way
>of knowing whether or not there was truthful backing for their beliefs.
>
>	However, if the apostles were preaching a lie, they would
>have known it; since they were the ones that were bearing testimony
>to the resurrection of Jesus. 

Upon what do you base your assertion that the apostles would have *known*
they were preaching a lie?  "Knowledge" must always be measured against
some kind of standard, you know.  Since many of the things the apostles
preached were (and are) unverifiable (i.e., you can't use the real world
as the standard of reference), your claim reduces to an argument that
these guys got their information from God.  The problem here, of course,
is that there is no way to independently verify *that* (and, besides,
there is nothing to prevent God from lying to them or, for that matter,
to guarantee that God knows the whole truth of everything).  So you end
up having to take their word for it.

And there you run into the biggest problem of all: *all* such priest-types
claim that their knowledge comes from the Creator (whether it be Baal, God,
Allah, or whatever).

Why do you accept the word of the apostles at face value, but not the word
of the Baal priests?

In an objective sense, the apostles were not superior to any other priest
type in the quality of their "knowledge".  If they were preaching a lie
(as measured against reality), they would *not* have known it.  In particular,
if their assertion that their knowledge comes from God is a lie, then the
entire argument that "they would have known that they were preaching a lie"
falls to pieces.

Since everything hinges on (a) whether or not their knowledge *actually*
came from God and, if (a) is true, (b) whether or not God was telling them
the truth, and since (a) is completely untestable, we simply DO NOT KNOW
whether the apostles were preaching lies or truth.

>bob weiss				              bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:48:27 GMT

  
    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)


>Who decides what publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  
---- The bible.


Who decides what religious denominations will be persecuted as "cults?"  
---- The bible.


Why do so many fundamentalists themselves manifest the same zeal or 
fanaticism they fault others for?  
---- We do not fault others for their fanatacisms, only for the incorrect
doctrines and beliefs associated with that fanatacism.
(sfg)


Could these people be dupes of some secret "church?"
---- Not hardly.  We are most certainly part of the "church" spoken of in
the bible, but since anyone can join that particular church, I would
hardly call it secret.
(sfg)


>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
---- That would depend on whom you asked.  I say yes, because it is not a
denomination, or a religion that will get one into heaven, or achieve
salvation for a person.  The only way that a person may be saved is
through Jesus Christ.  That can only be achieved by having a RELATIONSHIP
with him, not a religion, or a denomination.  Jesus Christ covers all
denominational boundaries, and like it or not, can snatch people from the
incorrect teachings of other religions, and their denominations.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life:  No man cometh unto the Father but
by me."
	---- Jesus.

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised
from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.  This is
the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is
become the head of the corner.  Neither is there salvation in any other: 
for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must
be saved."
		---- Peter  < The Rock >


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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21744 alt.atheism:21828
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:02:51 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Nov21.084335.13452@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!
>>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.
>jThose are just parts of God, not his/her whole!  And it irritaites me
>that fundementalist really humanize God.  God ain't human, sonny....
>...
>It amazes me still that you really think you, a mere person, know
>all of God.....kind of trivializes God, doesn't it?

So?
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu> 
	<30408@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
Date: 17 Nov 1992 06:43:50 UTC

In article <30408@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> 
pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>If you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
>NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
>of the Bible.

Why's that?
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:49:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <adams.722186101@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>
>And as for God lying,
>that is, by Christian definition, impossible.
>

  By whose definition?  Didn't you mean god's definition?

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:00:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:

>Let's stop all this beating around the bush. I completely agree with Mark
>Morrell, in that I do not want my child taught by a homosexual teacher
>either, and I am not afraid to say exactly why.
>
>I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
>indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted. Why are people so afraid
>to say this bluntly and truthfully? Yes it's unfashionable right now to say
>so, but it is perfectly consistent with 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
>morality and history. I stand on the side of the age-old standard. Let the
>perverts do whatever they want to in private, but they have no right to
>push their lifestyle on me or my family.

Lets take a look at the other side of that coin:

I don't care what the bigots do in private, but they have no right to 
push their lifestyle on me or my family.

>If you think this is not a legitimate concern, you should watch a little
>more television. Last Sunday I turned on the tv just in time to see a news
>report in which a lesbian sat with a group of 10 year old kids at some
>public school telling them all about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.
>Our nation has become so perverse in its thinking that the Bible is banned
>from school, yet homosexuality is welcomed.

Why is this perverse? You have bigotry or you have tolerance. I would
label your bigotry perverse.

>I simply refuse to tolerate such garbage, and yes, I am out to change the
>world, and to protect my child from such influences. There should be a
>hiring restriction against homosexuality in jobs that involve interaction
>with children. At the very least, the law should explicitly forbid teachers
>from discussing the homosexual lifestyle at school. 

Can't have any of that tolerance now. Bigots unite!

>I have nothing agaist any homosexual as a person, but I believe their
>lifestyle is an abomination, and I refuse to stand idly by and watch while
>they begin to teach their lifestyle to children. It's time for the rest of
>us who have some standards of morality to take back our society from those
>who are pushing us to accept and tolerate their immorality.

I have nothing against you as a person, but I believe that bigotry is
a dark spot on our society, and I refuse to sit idly by and watch while
they try to teach their lifestyle to children. It's time for the rest of
us who have some standards of morality to protect our society from those
who are pushing us to their intolerance and immorality.

>Chuck Petch

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af027@yfn.ysu.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Christmas
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:59:33 GMT


With Christmas coming up some of my friends and I were wondering
how people perceive the bitherth of Jesus Christ>.  Was
Christ born of a virgin, did God become man in Christ?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:28:47 GMT

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

>In article <1992Nov23.172155.15183@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>As a result of his participation in this thread, the case that Mr.
>>Sandvik recognized his error is more compelling than when we began.
>>He wrote, "...he should also state that I in my private email
>>conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of my statements
>>concerning logic."  It follows that he had recognized his error.

>Now I am more puzzled.  The above quote certainly sounds like acknowledgement.

If what was written were true, that would surely be the case.  What he
wrote wasn't true, however, which left me wondering what he meant.  I
had hoped he would make things clear for us.  Alas, I fear the
indirect statement above is all we shall ever see.  Very well, then.
I will not further refute Mr. Sandvik's claim of moral soundness.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc