HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:14:56 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
Flooding does not have to be too substantial to kill a few people,
especially those who have no believable warning.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

Gen 7:19...
     "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains 
      under all the heavens were covered." [NIV]

     "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all
      the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." [NASB]

     "The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high
      mountains under the whole heaven were covered." [NRSV]

Verse 20 says that it went 15 cubits (around 22ft) higher, and reiterates
that the mountains were covered.

 -Steve

--

And I suppose that Noah travelled the world to verify this
information.  Of course, we are assuming that the translations above
where truely inspired and accurate representations of the original
records of Noah's experience.

Mark
--
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:46:31 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug16.035213.6003@fcom.cc.utah.edu> jgmiles@amber.utah.edu (John Gregory Miles) writes:
><1992Aug10.231527.24204@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.713452645@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>>
>>>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
[much deleted]
>I think the proper interpretation of the verse is this:
>
>Jesus did nothing of himself, but what the Father told (i.e., taught) him 
>to do. [John 5:19-20; 8:28]  So in a very real sense, though Christ was
>sinless and held the office of Godhood, it was not He, but God the Father,
>that was good.  

How can someone be sinless, yet not be good?  If not following god is a
sin, then no matter what good you do you cannot be sinless if you do not
follow all of god's teachings.  And if you follow all of god's teachings
then you are good.  So, the only way Jesus could be sinless is if he
followed all of god's teachings, and if he did this then he was good.

>                Jesus was trying to teach the questioner that the only way
>for man to do good (including the Son of Man) is to receive inspiration
>from the Almighty God and act on that inspiration.  

Well, he did a really poor job of communicating then, didn't he.

>                                                    Even though we may have
>good intentions, they may end up resulting in "evil" (i.e., not good) if we
>do not have all the information relating to a particular situation.  Christ,
>too, advanced from grace to grace and knowledge to knowledge.  Sounds like
>we need a church with a living prophet at the head so that we do not "wrest
>the scriptures unto [our] own destruction." [2 Pet. 3:16]

Or, we need to toss aside this yoke of religion and get on with our own
lives.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13889 talk.origins:9444
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:58:25 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <2447@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
|> [I'm going to hate myself for perpetuating this cross-posted thread,
|> but here goes anyway.]
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug12.130908.7094@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
|> >    Welcome talk.religion.misc'ers to talk.origins 
|> >
|> >    Isn't it a coincidence?  Here we were talking about the species
|> >with many (>>2) sexes and other such things, while our friends over
|> >in talk.religion.misc were talking about parthenogenic species.
|> 
|> Regarding the matter of parthenogenic species and the flood, none of the
|> examples you cited (with the possible exception of your lizard, if it
|> exists) would qualify as an ark passenger, according to the biblical
|> account.  Certainly an earthworm would not qualify under the guidelines
|> given by God to Noah, it not having "the breath of life."  Most invertebrates
|> and lower life forms could survive a (relatively) short global flood without
|> the protection of the ark.
   
    Interesting.  Let's see -- how long can an earthworm survive 
under water? -- why don't you show us how most invertebrates, including
earthworms, could survive the Flood? 

    It would be fascinating to me to see how this is possible.  Let's 
see, the Flood was mild enough so that earthworms could survive -- yet
around here, when it rains, earthworms come to the surface, making a 
great feast for the robins.  It seems that they need a bit of air.  On 
the other hand, the ducks don't seem to mind that amount of rain at all.
Yet Noah had to take ducks on board, and didn't have to take worms.
None of the ducks in the world, except those taken on the Ark, could
survive.  Not even any duck eggs!

    Come to think of it, there are vertebrate, air-breathing frogs 
that can survive a lot of adverse conditions, yet for some reason 
they had to be taken on the Ark to survive this apparently rather 
mild Flood.

    I'm not asserting that my thoughts about this are absolute truth,
just wondering.  Perhaps you can clarify where I am mistaken.  But
please, just don't say that it could happen -- show us how it could
happen.

|> 
|> Now, if you can come up with a parthenogenic cow or horse, then maybe you
|> would be onto something.

    Are we to infer from this remark that if there is a parthenogenic
air-breathing land vertebrate (for example the lizard that I referred
to) that that says something about the Genesis Flood story?

|> 
|> -- 
|> Tom Albrecht

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:15:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1267@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
>Flooding does not have to be too substantial to kill a few people,
>especially those who have no believable warning.
>


One Bible translation reads (Genesis 7:19,20):

"And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains
that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.  Up to fifteen cubits
the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered."

Most fundamentalist groups that I'm aware of interpret these verses literally.
I don't see how any of the Israelite tribes that this was addressed to could
interpret it any other way.  Some modern interpretations that the Bible was
talking about a *local* flood just don't cut it.  See Henry Morris, et. al.
The basic argument is "if the flood was local why would God have Noah build an
ark to save the animals?"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:18:20 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
	<Bsxoq3.8pB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>

My roommate has a fundamentalist christain mother who gave her a bible
with annotations and comments by a Mr. Charles Ryrie, Th.D. and Ph.D. 
His comments on Numbers 5:11-31 are

These verses the "law of jealousy" whereby a woman suspected of marital
unfaithfulness had to be brought to the priest for trail before the
Lord(v. 16), who alone could reveal the truth of the matter. The ritual
of verse 23 symbolically transferred the written words of the curse to
the water.  Verse 27 may indicate a miscarriage (rot literally meands
"fall:, see Job 3:16 where a simialr Hebrew word refers to untimely
birth).  The practice here prescribed, apparently used only in the
wilderness, prevented jealousy and suspicion from corrupting familly and
community life.  God must have miraculoulsy controlled the results
whenever this test was used.

I am sure anyone really interested could probably have had this passage
translated from Hebrew by now.  The protracted argument that this
passage is not descibing an abortion merely shows us the intellectual
dishonesty of a few people.  

Michael Loomis
From: lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "mean" witches (and a request for courtesy and tolerance)
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:04:43 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>STOP!  The situation in the Baltic is in NO WAY CONDONED by any Christian
>churches in the West.  PERIOD!  The Pope himself has come out declaring this
>an attrocity that must stop and in full support of the UN resolutions!  

Huh? Anything going on in the Baltics that I haven't heard of?

>What is happening in the Baltics is a bloody civil war about what all civil
>wars are ultimately about - POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER.  The leaders are
>dredging up century old hatreds and prejudices in an attempt to gain power.
>The battles are Christian against Christian against Muslim with the Orthodox
>and Catholic factions fighting each other as vehemently as they are fighting
>the Muslims.  

Huh? I never heard there were a significant muslim minority in Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania?

>"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
You seem to need a map, or a globe perhaps? ;-)
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen            ! "Was der Poebel ohne Gruende einst glauben
lhp@daimi.aau.dk - Inf.&Media Sci. ! lernte, wer koennte ihm durch Gruende
Aarhus University, DENMARK         ! Das -- umwerfen?" -Nietzsche
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (#Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless...etc.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:32:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In Message-ID: <1992Aug22.221155.18701@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes

>frankly folks we are all as good as dead and a serious forum for
>discussing spiritual matters is in order if we can only cooperate and
>take each other seriously. 

And then:

> Not that any of you care,.... 

Sounds like you're not exactly taking your readers seriously.
From the sound of your post, the only "cooperation" you're
after is for others to cooperate and share *your* views.

>but if we can't
>get our act together I don't know why any serious individuals would>
>want to argue their legitimate points with the type above...  I would
>(and will) jump ship if I were you.  Surely you have better things to
>do.

John, I can understand his reaction.  Just as in your series on
homosexuality last spring, you're coming on like a
walking-baby-bible-thumper.  The impression you give, and have
given, is that your "sharing of points will be a one-way street,
and some folks just aren't interested in dealing with someone
thumping at them in such a manner.

If you're serious about discussing "absolutes", write a post
explaining why you think [insert your favorite dogma here] is
an absolute, and see what kind of things people have to say
about it.   With the combination of conservative Christians,
liberal Christians, skeptics, athiests, agnostics, etc, youre
bound to get some worthwhile responses.

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
or
smithw@mailhub.cs.itc.hp.com
(new ID, not real sure of the address...:-)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:39:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
>Flooding does not have to be too substantial to kill a few people,
>especially those who have no believable warning.

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Gen 7:19...
>     "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains 
>      under all the heavens were covered." [NIV]

>     "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all
>      the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." [NASB]

>     "The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high
>      mountains under the whole heaven were covered." [NRSV]

>Verse 20 says that it went 15 cubits (around 22ft) higher, and reiterates
>that the mountains were covered.

>And I suppose that Noah travelled the world to verify this
>information.  Of course, we are assuming that the translations above
>where truely inspired and accurate representations of the original
>records of Noah's experience.

Well, my point for putting up three translations was to try to remove 
questions about translations into english.  Whether or not the Masoretic
text is accurate or not is a matter of conjecture...

If one accepts the Scriptural witness, then this is the conclusion.  All
means all.  If you want a good discussion of why the flood couldn't have
been local, try "The Genesis Flood"...it goes into the Hebrew words and
meanings.  You don't have to buy their theories about the flood, just that
the plain meaning of the text is that the flood was worldwide.

Finally, the question is did it really happen?  I can't tell you from
evidence.  All I can say is that the symbolism and message are more
important, IMHO, than the actual events.

 -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: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:54:27 GMT

jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:


>I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
>including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
>Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".

	Neither of them is an error, sorry. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14397 talk.religion.newage:3910 sci.physics:13215
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:48:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle

In article <25623@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>I don't deny that scientists have morals and values and that it might 
>influence how and why they do what they do.  But the *facts* of physics
>are value-neutral.  What does the fact that the speed of light is the 
>same in all inertial frames of reference tell you about how we should
>behave towards one another?  What does quantum mechanics have to say 
>about right and wrong in human society?  Nothing.  Anyone who tries to
>deduce how we should behave from the rules of physics is way confused
>about the meaning of the laws of physics.
>
Does physics have anything to say about what reality is or is not?
If so, then it is telling us something about what is real and true,
and this, in turn, affects how we see the world.  And our world-view
will influence how we relate to and experience the world--including
other people.  Conversely, what we value and how we see the world
provides the motives and framework for the questions we seek in physics,
and this, in turn, influences what we will find and what we will ignore
in our investigations.

Maintaining certain facts about reality has consequences for our values.
Maintaining certain values has consequences for what facts we will find.
I just don't think the world can be chopped up neatly into facts and values.
-Tom McFarlane
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Cath. Christianity 101 - Series on Liberation Theology
Date: 16 Aug 1992 19:37:37 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu


Earlier in the summer, someone refered to the subject of liberation
theology.  At that time I made a promise to find and post the relavent
Vatican pronouncements concerning the subject.

So following will be the three main documents/pronouncements on 
Liberation Theology coming from the Vatican in the 1980s:

I.   The text of Pope John Paul II's opening speech at the Puebla 
     Conference in 1979.

II.  The CDF's 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation 
     Theology.

III. The CDF's 1986 Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation.

Read them.  Then recall what has been said about them -- primarily
by the radical left.  Do the texts mesh with the left's assertions.
Nope.  

Like I said earlier, the Church was not condoning injustice, it was
just making it damn clear that Christianity does not equal Marxism,
and that it was not going to let the Christian faith be usurped by 
it.  That of course was not particularly pleasing to the radical
left ... that didn't really give a damn about Christianity anyway.

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: None
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:15:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.134706@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>  1) Keep in mind that a milliliter (about a thousandth of a quart) sustains, on
>the low end of the scale, 100,000,000 reactions every second.  Imagine what a
>few megaliters of organic soup can do in a megayear.
>
>  2) Chemical reactions are NOT, nor will they ever be, random.  They follow
>very stringent rules, and many reactions are verboten many are encouraged,
>decreasing the odds significantly.
>
>  3) There is no reason to assume that life in it's current form is the only
>possible form.  There may be thousands, millions, or billions of different types
>of simple self replicating molecules.

Some years ago, some scientists put the basic compounds known to exist
back in the earth's early days in a large container. They included CO2, N2, H2O
and other compounds. I recall O2 was NOT one of the compounds supplied
in abundance.

They then ran electrical sparks through the container, to mimic lightening.
They ran this for a few days, nonstop. They then opened up the container
and found various organic compounds, amino acids, etc.

Now imagine this done on a planet-size scale with thousands of YEARS of
lightening etc.

Its hard NOT to imagine complex compounds building up over time.

Echoing point 2 above, there are numerous chemical reactions that
are heavily favored, i.e. 2C + 2O2 -> 2CO2
while others are not favored at all, i.e. 2CO2 -> 2C + 2O2

Chemical reactions are competing reactions and the most favored ones
tend to dominate over less favored ones. 

Chemical reactions are most definitely not random overall. Try and find 
metallic Sodium in nature - it simply doesn't exist, but gold does - Gold is
not chemically active while Sodium is very active. Thus Sodium is favored to 
react with almost anything while its very difficult to get gold to react 
with anything.

 
Joe
joec@morgan.com


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Keywords: Was Jesus a HATE monger? Well, what did He say in His own words?
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:52:26 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BtAn60.BqC@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Dogma Test: Luke 14:26
>In article <1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au> 
>lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
><  I assume you are saying that I must hate my father, mother , wife and
><children, brothers and sisters etc??? Look again Paul, this is another classic
><misquote of scripture seen before on this newsgroup. Jesus is saying that we
><must love Him more than anything/anybody else see Matt 10:37-39 which is a
><parallel verse .. and do us all a favour, don't misquote v35 as in the context
><of the paragraph, it makes sense and is *NOT* contradictory!!
>
>I did not misquote the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26, YOU DID! Perhaps you
>should read them again. I do not see the words "love Him more" in my version
>of the Bible. Which Bible are you quoting?

Paul look at Matthew 10.

Mat 10:37   "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not
   worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not
   worthy of me;
Mat 10:38   and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not
   worthy of me.
Mat 10:39   Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life
   for my sake will find it.
Mat 10:40   "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me
   receives the one who sent me.

How does that compare with the Luke passage?  

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

Worthiness test: Mat 10:38 and anyone who does not take his cross and 
                           follow me is not worthy of me.
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:22:43 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>I must say, I find your version of Christianity much more accommodating
>than the fundamentalist flavor.  I have difficulty comprehending such
>a stance though.  Although I am now an atheist, I was raised fundamentalist 
>and to this day think that their position is more consistent than moderate 
>Christianity's.  First, I will acknowledge that my understanding of
>this brand may have been misrepresented during my Fundamentalist 
>indoctrination, and I will welcome corrections.  Moderate Christianity
>strikes me as a cafeteria plan religion.  Choose the parts you like and
>disregard the rest.  For example, how can they read the creation stories
>as myths while Jesus apparently accepted them as historical facts?  Was
>Jesus mistaken?  How does this affect his divinity?

  this may bother you, but i am complete agreement with everything in
the above paragraph.  

---                          
     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?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc