HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:21:42 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

 Every bone in my body says "No - no God that could create this beautiful
 world would create beings whose fate was eternal torture."  That's just me,
 though.
  
No, it isn't just you. There was is in fact a christian
denomination called the Universalists, who originally
believed "everyone would be saved".

 If my logic is flawed ... I will humbly eat my words and
 repent myself in dust and ashes.
  
Remember, you saw it here folks!  :)

Dano

>The above opinions are not my responsibility, but Yahweh's, since he created
>me in such a way that I would feel that they are correct. Complaints should
>be directed to Him, not me, bub. 


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:05:48 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

>May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about
>anyone else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May
>I dare make the statement that I don't believe there are many
>non-Christians out there who are fearful because of the gospel.

NO non-Christian will be afraid of the messages in the Bible (NT, at
least; I won't discuss the Jewish situation).  If s/he were, s/he
would be a Christian out of fear.

Many Christians attempt to convert people by trying to convince them
that they will burn in hell for all eternity if they don't accept
Christ.  This is an obvious attempt to manipulate through fear and
threat.  Some Christians still attempt to proselytize by presenting
the straightforward message and letting the person decide for himself.
Most have found this to be ineffective, however, and have abandoned it
for the more effective extortion method.

>I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
>see joy and freedom rather than fear.  

It's amazing how many Scientologists make almost exactly the same
claim regarding their pseudo-religion.  Christianity and Scientology
have all-too-many similarities, despite their obvious gross
differences.

-- 
The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
	-- Abraham Lincoln
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 24 Aug 92 23:37:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714438372@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) >   i'm saying that i *don't* control god and i'm not god.  but if
left
> up to me to decide whatever i feel is right, there is nothing stopping
> me from defining anything as god.  thus i am in control of god's definition.
> there needs to be something beyond me to justify my experience of god or
> there is nothing stopping me from thinking god could have any characteristics.
> this last sentence is why i stopped believing 'each and every one coming to
> find one's own one true god'.  the self-worship stuff comes from not having
> anything objective beyond one's own definition of god.  if there is no higher
> authority beyond a person to determine whether it's god or not, then there
> is nothing higher than the person.  and while people may not be worshipping
> themselves, they often are not worshipping anything higher than them that
> is discernable beyond how they wish to conceive of god.

Ouch, this is an over-simplification of the topic. Those who don't 
believe in God believes in themselves. I've seen this political mantra
been told time after time so any believers would swallow it without
doing any personal thinking.

There are *many* schools of thinking where self-realization implies
self-termination. So for instance in Buddhism, englightenment ends
in termination. So you became a God and then you kill yourself. Does
that make sense concerning worshipping yourself. I love myself so 
much I will terminate myself. Ugh.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:24:16 GMT

(Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Are the insults really necessary?
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>Probably not, my apologies.

No probs.

(Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Think the following		blind faith = faith
>>						faith = educated guess.
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>Ah, but that makes no sense at all to me. Are you saying that blind faith
>is an educated guess, or what? I see a clear distinction between faith
>and blind faith but maybe that's just me.

Nope I am saying that what you call "blind faith" I call "faith",
and what you call "faith" I call "educated guess".

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Tim ONeill only re: A Critique...
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:36:15 GMT


Please email me a copy. I'm posting because the net didn't like the address
addrmap gave for you, so my email failed.

Perhaps you could break it up and post it in chunks.

Thanks,

Karl
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:37:41 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <92243.125027SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>
>As Western nations dawdled about using force to stop Serbia's
>"ethnic cleansing" campaign, Iran has asked the Organization of
>the Islamic Conference to hold an emergency meeting to study
>military options to defend Bosnian Muslims.  Turkey, a predominantly
>Muslim country, is prepared to send around a 1,000 men to Bosnia
>as part of a U.N. military force.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Are the Islamic
fundamentalists who run the government of Iran prepared to stop abusing the
"infidel" minorities, like Christians and Bahais, who live in their
country?  Are they prepared to institute religious tolerance?  Are they
prepared, for instance, to give portions of their own country to form a
Bahai homeland?

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:10:56 GMT

In article <1321@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.100021.89898@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.015950.11293@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
>> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>
>>> Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>>> of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>>> planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>>> could manage it in a humane manner.  How do you suppose that opposition
>>> to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?  Why
>>> was overpopulation not even on the table at the Rio conference?
>>
>
>What's the big worry?  Its clear that we are over grazing the Earth
>just as Nature (evolution, darwin, etc.) dictate we should.

No big worry I suppose.  It's just that I think that we have the
intelligence to avoid such a fate if we so chose.  You'll have to
forgive me for getting a little peeved at those who refuse to use
that intelligence.

>Maybe we
>humans are more intelligent, but its not clear that we are
>collectively intelligent enough to stop and we will eventually die off
>as a species to be replaced by a more intelligent one (perhaps by some
>jump in human evolution in some remote part of the world or some other
>creature that we are currently trying to educate!).  Of course, there
>is no guarantee that the new king of the hill will be more
>intelligent.

Exactly.  It certainly looks to me like intelligence, at least our
brand of it, has been a disastrous evolutionary failure.  There's no
reason to suppose that nature will make the same mistake again.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.212457.8588@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>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?

God is passing the buck? Why? To whom? Could He be passing the buck to
someone whom He created in His image? Who would that be? Who is not
accepting the buck? I for one partake of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge as often as possible and I take full responsibility for that
which I learn. Ain't no shame in my game. My eyes are opening, though
there is room for further opening. I am in need of no one to take the
responsibility of my knowledge, knowledge of good and evil, life and
death. I may have the knowledge to make a bomb that can destroy the
entire world, but I don't need anyone to blaim or save me from doing
that because I also have knowledge of good, of dharma. The fruit of the
tree of knowledge hits you hard, with knowledge of both good and evil.
Hit me hard with the fruit. I am ready to see and I am ready to take
responsibility for the knowledge that I gain. Ain't no shame in my game,
because I have eaten the sacred fruit and I will continue to as long as
I am a HUMAN BEING. This is how the creator created me, and I will not
let her down. Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like
me. Good .... DAY!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Organization: "Follow me and be free" freedom walkers
	<1992Aug27.172948.564@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.172948.564@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>Absolutely not!  One of the most basic beliefs in Christianity is freedom
>of choice. 

Although I'm hardly a Christian, nor do I wish to join that cabal, I couldn't
agree more. The Lord delivered us FROM slavery, and yet so many seem to
cling to the memory of the shackles. What is this desire for the restrictions
of slavery, the desire for an all knowing slave master? Why do we cower
from freedom? What can be so hard about walking the freedom walk? Who is
there to blaim but ourselves, if we aspire towards slavery? 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
Organization: Just watching the rein of Patriarchy fall
	<fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig> 
	<BtLv2F.Cp7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714863644@spssig> 
	<BtM79E.FEq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714924351@spssig> 
	<Btnto9.Kq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714953221@spssig>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:45:32 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
<Sure. And my God fits that.  He is trancendent of time...

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
<Ah, but is He transcendent also of sex? Can He assume both male and female
<forms? Is He neutral, as a true transcendent would be?

In article <adams.714953221@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
<Oh yes.  'God' is totally neuter.  The three persons of the Trinity are the
<Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
<The Holy Spirit, or 'Sophia' is female....at least according to modern
<(some would say liberal) understanding of the OT.
<The Son is clearly male in incarnation...but not necessarily in essence.
<The Father is perhaps better understood as a 'Parent'

Ah, well 'Parent' huh? Let's see, are we talking Creator? The Creator would
be a mother right? The mother of us all, She not He? And a true transcendent
would be transcendent of terms such as Father and He, don't you think? And
are you sure that Jesus was male? Perhaps The Daughter or just Jesus would
be more enlightened? And what about Mary? Would she be a demi-Goddess? The
personification of the Creator Mother? And as for Adam being the first man
and Eve being born from his body? Of course we know that the reality is that
the first human was mother or child, not man, right? And all humans come
from the Mother continent of Africa, none were born of man. Or do I have my
facts confused here?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:43:29 GMT

In article <l9s5tpINNdiq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>Really?  Every Christian I've ever talked to said that one had to accept the
>"gift" before dying--that the only unforgivable sin was to *not* accept the gift.
>They could have been wrong.  I'd like to see chapter & verse...
>
>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.

I think that you are right, at least about most variants of
protestant christianity.

I have always been confused by the question of timing.  Like many people
who read this net, I was reared in a religious tradition (R.C.).
I also lapsed into other flavors of christianity at other times.
The Catholic attitude is that one's condition of grace at the time
of death is the determinant of entry into after-death paradise,
so I clearly will not qualify (unless I have a relapse).  However,
the justified-by-faith crowd seem much more vague about this matter.
Do my years of devout christian faith get me a ticket into heaven?
If "believed and be saved" is the motto, I must be saved
because I believed.

Knowing that one is going to have eternal happiness
sure relieves a lot of contemporary stress (not!)


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 29 Aug 92 07:14:47 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<adams.714922883@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
...
>>I guess I really need to get some of this Christian exegesis to see 
>>what's really going on. This scripture stuff is so complicated and full of 
>>hidden and secret meaning, isn't it? Jah! ... Ras TafarI!
>No secret and hidden, but it does certainyl use allegory, metaphor,
>allusion, similes, poetry, parables, etc, etc.

And don't forget, it also requires a liberal dose of self-fulfilling
interpretation - "The sperent is really Satan because... uh...  because it
makes things really nice and symetrical when Satan shows up several
thousand years later against Jesus.  Even thought that one important name
is left out of Genesis, that's who it *must* be, otherwise it doesn't make
sense.  Yeah, so that's who the serpent is, yeah..."


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:32:01 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <sbuckley.715469522@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Stephen James writes:
>
>> I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
>>god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
>>go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
>>people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
>>creatures.
>
>  well, perhaps if you gave me a reason why you want me to be quiet
>and leave, i'd consider it.  until then, i can't take you seriously.


 I did give you a reason. You were preaching. FAQ says no preaching.
If you are going to present non-preaching arguments, stay. Otherwise,
bye now.

Stephen 

-- 
  Stephen A. James (519-2511)    | "We are the people our parents
  sjames@digi.lonestar.org       |  warned us about"
  DSC Communications Corporation |  
  *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |  J Buffett - for president
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:02:09 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>I believe the premise is wrong here.  The Adam & Eve "thang" really
>wasn't over a piece of fruit nor was it over the attainment of the
>knowledge of good and evil.  It was over whether Adam and Eve would
>obey or disobey God.  God gave them a clear order.  Man disobeyed
>God.  Nobody forced Eve to take the bite.  What enticed Eve?  What
>made her bite?  That's the interesting story.  

However, "God" created Adam, Eve, the tree and its fruit, and
everything else, or so we are to believe if we follow stock Christian
theology.  We are also told that God has infinite knowledge and
wisdom, so he should have known that were he to put his creations
together in the way that he did the result that came out of it would
have inevitably occured.  It is capricious of a Creator to set up his
creations like this and then punish them for falling for the setup.
Either that, or "God" is an idiot for not foreseeing the consequences,
but this presumption contradicts the understanding that "God" is
infinitely wise.
-- 
"If our section was 'Romper Room', our TA would have been great.  I'm just
 surprised she didn't threaten to take recess away from us."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:52:47 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>If one develops a faith that becomes certainty in anything then
>include that in the absolutes...  I am trying to stress that that
>just doesn't happen for falsehoods.  Of course to hold to this I have
>to think that my certainty in Christ is just that while X persons
>faith in Y (non-Christ) is only hope.

Let's see if I can make any sense out of this.

** If one develops a faith

That is, if one accepts something as true without justification....

** that becomes certainty

You've accepted it as true when you 'developed a faith'.  Why would
you be uncertain about it?  I don't see how the first can occur
without the second.

** then include that

What is 'that'?  The whatever that is accepted on faith?

** in the absolutes...

The absolute whats?

** I am trying to stress that that just doesn't happen for falsehoods.

That what doesn't happen for falsehoods?  That one can't 'develop a
faith that becomes certainty' in a falsehood?  Why not?  Evidence is
quite clear that this happens all the time (mutual exclusion, after
all).

I won't even bother with your moral supremacy position, how your
belief is obviously true while somebody else's is merely hope.

>Don't think too hard about it or bother getting into a huge argument
>because I am busy w/Sean (!) and homework right now...  I know the
>above sounds weird and I really should think things through more and
>give reasons with my conclusions.  Sorry.

Oooh.  Nice evasion, there, John.  Why do you do this all the time
when cornered?

Yes, you should give reasons for your conclusions.  I for one will not
accept an argument that says 'X is true.  Because I say so.'
-- 
"If our section was 'Romper Room', our TA would have been great.  I'm just
 surprised she didn't threaten to take recess away from us."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.082312.26247@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>It doesn't really matter... I started out on Taoism, then bordered on
>Satanism, then went for a brand of objectivism, and none of these things held
>any meaning for my life.  For a long time Christianity was just another thing
>to try, but it has made me whole.

But is this any more meaningful than the following?

It doesn't really matter... I started out with Pot, then tried Coke a few
times, then went for Extacy, and none of these things held any meaning for
my life. For a long time Acid was just anothing drug, but it has made me
whole.

If you don't think any one would say this ask someone at a dead show :-)
Of course you will try to dismiss it as drug based delusions, what you
will try to ignore is that religion is no different, it gives religious
"highs" and "downs" and delusions just as intense as any illicit drug.

-- 
>>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.--          \/
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15113 alt.atheism:16082
From: sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:09:21 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>---                          
>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   

Stephen,

 I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
creatures.

 Stephen

-- 
  Stephen A. James (519-2511)    | "We are the people our parents
  sjames@digi.lonestar.org       |  warned us about"
  DSC Communications Corporation |  
  *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |  J Buffett - for president