HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.180251.22218@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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)

My point is that most of the fundie movement is composed of a group of
people who worship a book.  A group of people who worship a humanbeing
somewhere out there in the universe.  My contention is, that this
isn't Christianity.....
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:56:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.225108.26382@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>
>  
>    ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>about what   
>    gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes...
>
>
>----  The apparent rise in fractionalization of the "church" is not due to
>any ambiguity or discrepencies in the bible.  This fractioning arises when
>certain people get it in thier heads that they can interpret scriptures
>better than anyone else, and decide to start their own church with their
>own beliefs.
>
>If one takes the bible as a whole, and asks for the instruction and
>inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then that person would always get the same
>doctrines and the same teachings.  If everyone did this, as all true
>"born-againers" are supposed to, then it would be easy to see the
>uniformity of it.
>
This is evidenced by the vast number of denominations that share
a common statement of faith.  That is, they believe all the same things.
What does differ, is merely a "style."  One church has a quiet reserved
service lasting "so" long, and doing this or that in the service.
Another may be loud and raucus, and its service conducted thus and so,
but they believe the same thing.  Often people decide to leave a church
and found another, based on conviction that they are led by God to do so.
They may be an outreach from that denomination, or decide to affiliate
with another, or none, as they feel led by the Spirit to do the best
possible job of meeting people's spiritual needs.

God Bless,

Glenn


-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:46:42 GMT

: In article <BxH4z1.DxD@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
: >
: >You have made the classical mistake with omnicience-- believing that
: >knowledge = interference, or that it is active or has action associated
: >with it.  I have mentioned in a previous post about this, that knowledge
: >is passive.  You know that the lights will come on or go off when 
: >you flip the switch, but it doesn't happen unless you actually do it.
: >Because God knows what you have done, are doing, and will do, doesn't
: >mean that you then didn't, aren't, or won't do the thing or make
: >the choice.  If you still do not understand omnicience, let me know
: >and I'll try to explain in better terms.   Omnicience has NOTHING
: >to do with free will or free agency.

God knew that Adam and Eve would cause Original Sin *before* he
created them, and yet *he* chose to create them.  Either God
blocked his omniscience in this case allowing for either possibility, 
or else Adam and Eve didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding 
their sin.  By the way, when God created Adam and Eve, what was the
probability he programmed into them that they would eat the fruit?
50/50?  Is the misery in the world today the result of a lousy set
of probabilities programmed into us by God?  Could someone please
answer these questions for me?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:16:39 GMT

[the following is a combubilation of correspondance between three different
persons.  btw.  does one of you not know the vi trick of-- :1,$s/^/>/ --?
This is a crude but workable way of putting carrots in front of everything.]
>
>No conference ever has rewritten the Bible.
allegedly.  it would be interesting to see doubtless evidence pointing 
to any such speculation of collaboration.

>:  |> 3) The great moral teachings of the Bible - No other book has ever
>:  |>     condemned immorality so severely or demanded as high a standard of
>:  |>     righteousness.  It is virtually unique among religious documents.
> 
>:  Rubbish.

>>"Turn the other cheek".  "Love your enemy".  "Do unto others...".  I
>>reassert, the Bible has no match, especially among religions at its
>>time.
Yes.  This is mostly rubbish too.

>	The Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad Gita were all written before
>Jesus Christ lived. The Buddha lived before he did.
>
>	What more can be said?
Apollo is said to have walked as a stranger along a path with men much
like Jesus did with his apostles after his resurrection.  If there are
parallels with the myths, existing legends, and miscellaneous doctrine 
of the time, it is plausible to think that the authors of the texts
were consciously couching the language of the events to make them
more *familiar* to the people they were trying to speak to.  i.e.
"You have heard of such a legend?...We have lived with and met with
such a person in the FLESH..."  It is worth speculating that each of
the Gospel writers recorded the selected scenes that they did to suit
their specific audiences and their own personal needs.  With some 
sleuthing around in the NT, we find that John Mark had some serious
difficulty in his discipleship.  In his alleged Gospel, we find this
reflection--there is a lot of concentration on developments of 
"discipleship failure."  I say "concentration" because he leaves many
of the accounts at the two-thirds point [where the apostles still didn't
have a clue] in many scenes.  Matthew on the other hand usually says
at the end of each of these scenes "Then they understood."  But the
author of Matthew is a different person with a different agenda.

>:  RUBBISH!!  Where are women in the bible?  Where is their dignity and freedom?
>:  Their interests, their intelligence?
As Ross Perot would say, "Let's put this into perspective."
Most of the Biblical writings are reflections only of the land
and times of Palestine and the dominant cultures in the surrounding
regions.  I think women in the Bible actually receive more dignity
and freedom, RELATIVELY speaking, for the times and cultures involved.
Perhaps there is something to be said of moderating the pace of a
revolution.--slaves?  the same business...  there is a much more
thematical point to be made in the Bible.

Just my $0.02 
Terence
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21482 alt.atheism:21613
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:48:25 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov17.070949.6565@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.164411.7165@newstand.syr.edu>,
>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>|>If the Bible or whatever religious text was supposed to be
>|>interpreted differently from what the words literally sa wouldn't
>|>the author(s) have included that vital fact in the book?
>   
>No.  
>1) They were writting in a style that was appropriate for
>the period.  Anyone from that time should be able to understand 
>the authors' meanings.
>2) Allegories, satire, and parables rely on the intelligence of
>the reader to convey meaning.  "Gulliver's Travels" didn't have
>footnotes saying "OK, these guys represent the Tories".
>
>Brian /-|-\ (who would think that _I_ would defend the Bible!?! ;^)

That's pretty weak minded.  The Bible is claimed by their followers
as an authoritative book, even the word of God.  When claims like
this are made it simply is not good enough to be so cavalier about
the facts or author's meanings.  Whereas with fiction this would
be acceptable.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21489 alt.atheism:21619
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:15:01 GMT
 <1992Nov18.124825.17780@newstand.syr.edu> <1992Nov18.132411.18047@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:

>Christian theists say that God is real.
Accurate.

>Christian theists teach their young children that Santa-Claus is real.
Inaccurate.  Not all do.  I have taught my children from the beginning that 
there is no such thing as Santa Claus.  My 3-year old happily tells anyone 
who cares that he is just 'a man in a suit playing make-pretend.'  And he 
knows that Christmas is "God's birthday".

>Some of them even go so far as telling their children that the 
>Easter Bunny is real.
Accurate (you said 'some').

>Since Christians are the children of God what stories has God told
>just to see their happy faces.  Can you say heaven or rapture?
>And what happens when God tells them about the pink invisible unicorns
>that like to hide in the walls of people's apartments, but can be seen by
>wolves with x-ray vision during full moon?!  :')

Just because some people employ secular ideas and stories in addition to
their religious beliefs does not imply that all do.  And as for God lying,
that is, by Christian definition, impossible.

 -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: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:01:23 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <BxvqEK.IFL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch) writes:
>With Richard Pitts example 
>
>>Often in the Books of Moses (Gen - Deut) we see where it is recorded that God
>>told Moses to write that down.
>
>I have to ask if writing was even around at that time. If there was then in what
>language was he writing?  And how many times had it been translated/copied before
>it reached the Bible that we know today? When was the Bible actually written?
>And who by? How did the person who wrote it collect all the stories? 
>How is it possible that anyone could have wrote the story of Adam & Eve in the 
>first place and in the second place isn't it now fairly certain that we evolved
>from apes. Thirdly we could not have originated solely from Adam & Eve as there
>would have been too small a gene pool. Forthly if we did then their children must
>have had to copulate with each other to have children which I believe is against
>the teaching of your god.

It is very likely that the books of Moses, at least Genesis,
were passed down orally, verbatim from generation to generation.
Anthropologists know that in illiterate people the powers of
memory are very highly developed and then begin to fade as they
develop literacy.  The great epic poems like the Eddas, Nibelungen-
lied, and Kalevala, were passed down with remarkable accuracy
and widely known, down to the nineteenth century.  Fortunately
several scholars recognized that these great poems would soon
be lost, as modern civiliazation advanced, and they wrote them
down.  But whether oral or, at some point written, one must
emphasize the great seriousness with which earlier peoples 
took the business of accuracy.  In ancient Egypt the penalty
for making a mistake in carving a hieroglyphic inscription was,
did you know, death.  Not that errors are not possible, but
they were much more careful than we are today, especially with
our word processors.

Did we evolve from the apes?  I can offer, as another alternative
to special creation, another view of evolution that the evolution
was the other way around, that the apes evolved from man. But that
would be for another discussion.  Your question about the gene pool
would also fall under that topic.

The important thing is not to picture Adam as walking around the
way any Joe Smith would walk down Main Street.  Imagine a time when
the whole earth was vastly different, and when Adam was the embodiment
of the whole of what is now differentiated humanity.  The union
of Adam and Eve, as well as the fact that their sons Cain and Seth
found wives, and Abel went to a far country and had progeny, should
be seen in terms of this greater picture.  Genesis is quite true,
literally, but not literally-materially in terms of man and the earth
as we experience it today.  Yes there is evolution, but it is different
than you think.

Gerry Palo (e-mail to 73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21133 sci.skeptic:19610
From: rbunge@eis.calstate.edu (Russell K. Bunge)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:51:07 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

From eis.CalState.EDU!nic.csu.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu!ric 13 Nov 92 01:14:56 GMT
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:05:52 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721875575@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
>>flat out lying?


Uh-oh: theological crisis coming on:

>If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
>right now.
>
>Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
>him with anything...specifically his comment about Satan being "the
>father of lies."
>
>Come on....God is incapable of lying. It completely goes against his
>perfect nature.

Can't trust Him(tm) with anything? He "made" Satan after all, huh? G-d
incapable of lying? How do we know? Everything written about "him"
was written (and is written) by fallible men. . .How do you "know"
>anything<, really?

D.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Women in the NT [was: Who wrote the bible?]
Date: 16 Nov 1992 16:06:40 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Jesus first appeared to women.  There was a gang of women that followed Jesus.
>Paul spoke to groups of women often and women are often mentioned in Paul's
>closing - the women had churches in their houses.

There's a very interesting article in one of the last couple of issues of
"Bible Review" (or was it "Biblical Archaeology Review"?) that deals with
issue.

The primary focus was on Mary Magdalene[*].  Although her role is
relatively small in the NT itself, we can assume must she must have had a
great deal of standing in the early Church since she was one who discovered
the empty tomb (that is the Church wouldn't have given such a significant
role to someone it considered a minor player).

   [* We should emphasize at the point that Mary Magdalene was **NOT** a
      whore.  One can only come to that reading by the most radical of
      harmonizations of several different Gospel threads.]

A good book on this issue (i.e. the position and role of women in the time
of the early Church) is a book by Bernadette Brooten.  The exact title
escapes me at the moment: it's something very close to _Women and the Early
Synagogues_.  If anyone's interested I can bring this in.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --     "...and they opened their thesaurus and offered 
                            him gold and frankincense and myrrh..."



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21535 alt.atheism:21656
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:10:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com>, Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes...

>Finally, is God evil because he condemns sin, judges people for it, and
>casts them into hell if they have not accepted Jesus as Savior? Certainly
>not. He's God. He made us, and He sets the rules He wants us to live by.

You beg the question.  It is possible to hold a god to a higher moral standard.
After all, it isn't inconceivable that the Christian God is a nasty bugger who
likes a good joke, tittering as he watches his creation scramble around trying
to figure out what is sin and what isn't.  Kind of the supernatural equivalent
of a little kid holding a magnifying glass to an ant colony.  

Besides, the way you describe God above makes him seem like a spoiled chiled 
who is pissed off at anyone who doesn't come to his birthday party.  Gee, what
a thing to worship.

>It's our choice whether we want to live by them or not, but if we choose
>not to, we shouldn't come whining to Him on the day of judgement. WE made
>the choice for sin and against God, effectively casting ourselves into
>hell. 

In other words, "dance or die, anty-poo!"

>And finally, the Bible says God loves us, EVERY ONE OF US, more than
>we love our own children. He wants us to make the right choice, to choose
>Him and not hell, but it's entirely up to us. And I can verify this much;
>life as a Christian has been far more joyful and satisfying than it ever
>was before I was a Christian. Seek Jesus out, and ask Him to forgive your
>sins and come into your life. You won't regret it.

Sez you.  If he wanted us to make the right choice, why did he make it seem so
implausible (and unpleasant to boot)?

Man, I never date women who put me to the test.  (If you loved me, you'd...) 
Why should I put a god that does the same up on a pedestal?  Sounds like he 
has a real self-esteem problem.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:59:53 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>Test grade: 100% (no spiritual intelligence)

Kalki's grade: 0% (no rational intelligence)

Keep trying!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:44:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

As a consequence of feedback by David Hatcher, let's try again, 
[the general point still doesn't change]
In article <11506@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <adams.721580809@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>NO!  He said "Do not murder".  The Authorized Version (KJV) got it wrong!
>>There are numerous places in the OT where death is prescribed as the proper
>>punishment for crime.  What was forbidden was murder.
>
>...What most of the
>critics of the Bible (such as myself) keep pointing out is 
>...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...

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

In the Bible, what zillions of people "are pampered for
the duration of their earthly lives" for *no fault* whatsoever?

Fortunately, the deity's plan of restoration for anyone's
life is a function totally independent of *fault*.  This is 
fortunate because *fault* is no longer much of a variable.
It is essentially a given.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.192305.23123@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>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.

Requiring him to defend a claim of being morally sound is somewhat equivalent
to the following: I claim that only axe-murderers watch MTV.  You say "well,
I watch MTV and I'm not an axe-murderer".  I reply "prove you're not an axe
murderer".

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.
--
"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