HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:36:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>: Dan O'Connell writes:
>: 
>:   this is a very easy critique to wiggle out of.  this situation assumes
>: the human nature of the two children today is the same as the nature of
>: adam and eve as they were created in harmony with god as he was providing
>: all their needs and of their own accord they ate not of that tree until
>: tempted.  so the analogy becomes faulty on that assumption.

>Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
>to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
>that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
>fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
>than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
>passing the buck on this?

He's not.  Assuming that there *IS* a possibility of failing to withstand
temptation that is non-zero, eventually temptation will succeed.  Even if
the chances are, say, 1 in 13 million, then eventually it will happen.
After all people do win the lotto with thost odds...

 -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
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Distribution: talk
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az


If Mr. Sutter truly wants to discuss evolution, or promote creation
theories, I would recommend that he take this subject to talk.origins.
There, he will find an audience well prepared to discuss the real
issues.  He will also find several FAQ files available, some of which
will keep him (hopefully) from posting flawed arguments against
evolution.

For example:
>
>2. I use the term "evolution" broadly for convenience.  I know the
>difference between "abiogenesis," "natural selection," "genetic drift,"
>etc.  But I habitually use "evolution" to sum up a whole concept of
>origins (as opposed to "special creation").  Instead of writing:

Nobody cares how you use the term "evolution".  If you're going to 
talk to other people about something, you're going to have to agree
to use the definitions for words that they know, understand, and
ascribe to.

and:
>
>3. This may surprise many, but I cheerfully agree that "microevolution"
>happens all the time.  :-) I just don't think it should be called
>"evolution."  Of course there are blue finches and orange finches and
>quite possibly purple polka-dotted finches, all descended from common
>ancestor(s), but:  a) I would call this "variety within a `kind'" instead
>of "evolution" (which implies eventual change of `kind'); b) the finches
>are still finches, they haven't changed into dogs or cats.  (Aside:  If
>you feel I'm using the term "microevolution" wrongly, please let me know!)

I don't care how you're using the term "microevolution", at least not
for the moment.  I'm a lot more interested in what you mean by "kind".
I'll bet you can't produce a logically consistent definition of what
you mean when you say it.  Using undefined terms in argument undermines
the argument.

>While there is obviously great variety within dogs (and within cats, and
>horses, etc.), no matter how much time you allow one does not change into
>another.

This is called a "straw man."  You ascribe to your opponent a view
which they do not, in fact, possess (ie:  That evolution means cats
becoming horses), and then you argue against it.  It can be an
entertaining pasttime, for one person.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:29:33 GMT

Daniel E. Platt (platt@watson.ibm.com) wrote:

: Another element involves how we interpret 'facts.'  There's been arguments for
: the last 70 years about what quantum mechanics 'means' (generally revolving
: around the question of measurement, collapse of wave vectors, etc).  There
: seems to be a fair amount of ambiguity on this issue.  A more virulent force
: is the creationist movement -- reflected in everything from the Scopes trial
: early in the century, to very much more modern cases; text-book publishers at
: the secondary level are being strongly influenced by the impact of censorship,
: morality groups, and creationist activist groups.  Whether they are 'facts' in
: the objectivist sense or not, humans seem to believe what they want to believe,
: and they are willing to fight each other to have their ideas prevail, even
: if they might be wrong (try to tell a creationist that they *might* be wrong).

Who was it that said, "Man is not a rational animal - he is a rationalizing
animal."
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smk@cbnews.cb.att.com (stephen.m.kennedy)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:34:33 GMT

In article <adams.714863266@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>I do smell a fish! ;-)  In your logic again.  If God created people who
>would ALWAYS chose the right way, they aren't truly free!

But what exactly do you mean by "truly free"?  There are many, many things we
cannot do, perhaps even things we don't have concepts for, so why does "truly
free" only encompass being able to choose between "good" and "evil"?

Steve Kennedy
smk@cbosgd.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Organization: badges, we don't need no stinking badges!
	<fR68HZi@quack.sac.ca.us> <lackdbINNe1k@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<adams.715546026@spssig>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:26:29 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Hmmmmm! Where is a talking serpent when you need one?

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>I asked Paul this same question....he mentioned that they still exist! ;-)

In a metaphorical sense, of course. ::B^} But this just leads into the
question of whether the serpent "talked" to Eve at all. Perhaps she was just
debating the pros and cons and was just using the snake as a devil's advocate.
Maybe she could throw her voice. Compare this to Adam who just ate without 
contemplating. Does this mean Eve was created "smarter" than Adam? If you say 
eating fruit is evil, then Eve must be eviler than Adam, but if you say 
eating fruit is human ... Maybe Eve correctly weighed the pluses and minuses
of it all and decided to eat and then deducing that she would be born or
thrown out for this decision, she offered some to Adam also, since she knew
she would need him also, and she knew that Adam would not question if she
approached in the correct manner, in the nude. Hmm ... Maybe patriarchy is
in vain. Clever to pin it on the snake, don't you think? Maybe all the
voices were the voice of Eve? Adam told the story to his children later, but
never knew of the ventriloquism at work. And Eve, knowing of the fragile
male ego was not going to correct. Everything worked out for the good, didn't
it? Except for that poor snake. Aw ....
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15633 alt.atheism:16537
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:53:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <dabrowsk.715057380@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>Stephen James writes to Stephen Buckley:
>
>>please do not continue this preaching here. 
>
>PREACH: 1. to deliver a sermon 2. to explain in a tiresome way 3. to
>use arguments to which an alt.atheist can find no counter-arguments.
>

  Oh, I do hate it when you bait me into a reply such as this Jarek.
  But since my immortal soul chose this lifestyle, I guess I'd better 
  act accordingly...

  In order for an alt.atheist to have any chance of countering your
  arguments, he or she would have to actually have *seen* a
  reasonable argument to debate.  What we usually see from you is a
  vaporous explanation for phenomenon that likely don't even exist, 
  which grows exponentially with the need to rationalize it's
  apparent inconsistencies.  Your entire philosophy is one of
  modified hedonism:  accept what feels good.  Whether it is even
  remotely accurate is immaterial to the discussion.

  I have a schizophrenic mother.  I can't counter-argue her
  assertions either.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

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

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

  --Robert Heinlein
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15617 alt.atheism:16525
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:25:13 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Eric Sieferman) writes:

         ...A look at the membership numbers of U/U's, however,
 shows that this slightly more humane approach to 
 belief and ethics is not likely to catch on in a world
 dominated by R.C., Islam, et.al.

That's what the Romans said about christianity :)

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:50:02 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all... I am back from an AWESOME summer.  Just a few observations:
>> 
>> 1.   This group never gets anywhere with any of the discussions and
>>      arguments are never decided.
>> 2.   The only thing anyone learns is how to defend themselves and
>>      maybe (just maybe) a little theology.
2b. 	The theology you might learn is useless.

>> 3.   The honesty and willingness to learn and change is severly
>>      lacking in many poster personalities.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:36:34 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep1.040419.20398@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
|In article <67355@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|
|> The seekers of signs and wisdom see the point of our preaching (the cross) 
|> as foolishness, but to us who believe it is the power of God (I Cor 1:17-31).
|> 
|> From the Book of Revelations, we find that "the testimony of Jesus
|> is the spirit prophecy"(Rev 19:10) and from Paul's writtings that "the things
|> of the spirit are hidden from those without the spirit."
|
|So we are far too wise to understand your religion?

If you read I Cor 1:18-25, you might see the contrast of your wisdom and
abibility and that of God's.

   1 Cor 1:18   For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
      perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
   1 Cor 1:19   For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the
      intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
   1 Cor 1:20   Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the
      philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the
      world?
   1 Cor 1:21   For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom
      did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was
      preached to save those who believe.
   1 Cor 1:22   Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
   1 Cor 1:23   but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and
      foolishness to Gentiles,
   1 Cor 1:24   but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
      the power of God and the wisdom of God.
   1 Cor 1:25   For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the
      weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


Maybe you are blinded to the message by the god of this age:

   2 Cor 4:4   The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so
      that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
      is the image of God.
   2 Cor 4:5   For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and
      ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

|Hey, I can live with that!

But you can't die well with it.

|Tim O'Neill


For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 17:17:18 EDT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> But in my Lutheran Sunday school classes and Catholic theological
> classes, I _was_ taught that sex is something holy, to whose meaning
> adultery and fornication are an insult.
> 
> Besides, I didn't find any mention in the Bible that sex is
> "disgusting", either.
> 
>      << Brian >>
> 
If sex is holy then why limit it only to marraige. Many ancient cultures 
had a temple prostitute whose duty was to help you achieve union with the 
goddess via sex.  Personally I never felt premarital sex diminishes the 
importance of sex in the relationship.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 08:44:50 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Jonathan W Newton) emphatically defines christianity:
> 
> This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to have
> faith that christ is the savior and son of god.  This means that you
> do not question (think critically) about the subject of god in any way.
> Furthermore, anything that the bible says is true is not to be
> questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith and accept it as fact.
> To put it simply,faith in something means you believe in something
> without proof or reason.  
>
>And this is Mr. Newton's fantasy about how christians
>define faith. I am unaware of ANY christian theologian
>who would agree with his view. 
> 
>Dano

You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed to doubt
that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to doubt christ is the
son of god.  You are to simply have faith that these assumptions are correct. 
Post on christian newsgroups and most will agree that you must have faith in
these.  If my views are a fantasy, then we are all being tricked by Descarte's
evil demon.


Jon Newton
From: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Wells)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Unitarian Christianity
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:58:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


	I would like to know if there is anyone on the net who, like
myself, adheres to good old-fashioned Unitarian Christianity.
Admittedly, I usually don't read this group much for fear of flames,
but I'm ready to put my head out. Perhaps I'm feeling brave because,
for the first time in my life, I've met two real live flesh and blood
Unitarian Christians, and that makes me feel less alone. (As they say,
there are three religions in Georgia: Baptist, Methodist and Football
;<)=) 
	By Unitarian Christian I mean those Christians who are
distinguished by the belief that the traditional theology of the
Incarnation and the Trinity are "pagan accretations...to the true
faith" (to use a 19th century phrase) and not the real religion of the
Lord Jesus. If at this point you wish to flame, e-mail me and save us
all the bandwidth. If you agree with me, or think you might, also
e-mail me. I am particularly interested if any traditional
Universalists are out there, since I am also Universalist, since
northeast Georgia is a remaining holdout of traditional Universalism,
and because Antebellum Georgia Universalism is my master's thesis
topic. (Universalism, for those of you unfamiliar with the doctrine,
denies endless torment, and believes - more or less - that the entire
human race will be "restored to holiness." Most Universalists are
Unitarian, and vice verce.)
	If you are not a member of a Unitarian Universalist
Association member congregation, well...all the better. Around here,
all the "UUs" are ethical humanists, neo-pagans and pantheists, though
I hear it's different in New England.

	To all, may the Peace of God go with you.

	Scott Wells
	(wells@athena.cs.uga.edu)
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Satanic Crime units?? Re: WoD: Frontline Report
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:56:50 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Aug26.213518.21252@ugle.unit.no> toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen) writes:
>In article <3458@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>>#	I'm pro-God, and I don't think you should be allowed to discuss
>>>#the merits or even the alternative of satan-loving on a network that is
>>>#partially government-funded.

Grow up, no matter what Pat Buchannan and Robertson think this country is
not a theocracy! 
If we are going to censor satanists, why don't we censor radical fundy
loony's to? After all its not satanists who are trying to write bigotry
into the constitution of Colorado.
The only difference between a radical fundy and a satanist is that the
satanist admits he is evil.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman)
Subject: Re: Calendar (NEW)
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:54:12 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>(Keith Bloom) writes:

> There is no computation of the date for Easter given in the Bible.
> That was established much later, and is independent of the Jewish
> calendar, although the computation ensures that the date occurs during
> the same season of the year.
> 
>Interestingly enough Easter comes on the first sunday after the
>first full moon after March 20th. Rather a complicated formula,
>isn't it?

>I have heard that this was originally set because of a pagan
>holiday occurring at the same time; this would hardly be the
>first time for that, however.

There is some truth to the observation that easter was originally set
to intersect (more or less) with a pagan holiday. On the other hand,
it was formed much more by political forces. One of the greatest bones
of contention in early medieval england (and an issue that divided the
church for several decades into a lot of competing factions) was the
date of easter, and it's exact computation. I seem to recall from my
medieval history class that the final answer was agreed upon at 
sword-point.

:)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:44:20 GMT

In article <l=knl5=.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>	This really isn't worth my time, but...

So sorry to bother you old chap.  I know it's much easier to scream and
yell rather than to provide some cold hard reasoning, but the former
leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth.

>	Eric quoted a figure from ZPG about there being "enough" food to
>feed something like 3.2 gigafolk. Does it really take much thought to
>see this is a meaningless statement, a pseudo-statistic?

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that there is only
a finite amount of arable land on which to grow crops.  Eric pointed out
that the amount of this land is decreasing due to soil erosion, and the
yield of the remaining land is decreasing because of the reduced use of
fertilizer.  I don't think it does take a great deal of thought to see
that our ability to produce food is decreasing.  Perhaps you disagree
with one or more of the premises, but if so, I wish you'd say so rather
than just ranting and raving.

>As Eric did,
>indeed, agree, food supply is not a constant. If he knows that, just
>what does he think this ZPG nonsense _means_? As an argument for zero
>population growth it is simply ludicrous.

To use your own word: Duh.

ZPG and Eric say food supply is not a constant, but rather is decreasing.
You say that is this is a ludicrous argument for zero population growth.
I agree.  I think it's an airtight argument for negative population growth.
But we've got to start somewhere.

>	Life is not a zero-sum game. Everybody agrees with that when
>it's stated in such a general fashion, but many proceed to forget
>it when anything specific gets discussed.

That's because it's one of those meaningless mantras that only
serve to stifle any real thought on the issues.  I wish you'd stop
chanting it.  What the hell do you think it means anyway?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism