HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:57:11 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>George La Belle writes:

>>	Wrong! I am as much an atheist as anyone, however I am willing to admit
>>	that there may be a "creator". What shape or form it/he may be, I
>>	wouldn't have the slightest.

>  you see no evidence that jesus made an appearance yet you allow for the
>possibility for god to make an appearance--perhaps in the future.  you must
>have quite a large, cumbersome set of reasons to disbelieve in jesus' presence
>despite all the work done on it.  i am in awe of the amount of faith you
>must have in your reasons to believe there is no evidence to convince you
>of jesus' presence.
	
	1) To deny the fact that there *may* be a "creator" or entity that
	is responsible for all that we are *aware* that exists - would be
	rather foolish, considering all the pieces of our knowledge that
	are missing with regards to the origin and evolution of the universe.

	2) (preface: I never said a person named Jesus, never made an 
	appearance.) The claim that Jesus is/was a "god" holds no water. Not
	anymore water that we are re-incarnated (according to Hindu mythology)
	or that the prophet Mohammed actually talked to "god". The only
	"evidence" that I know, presented for his divinity, are some question-
	able ancient manuscripts of unknown origin and translation. That is not
	enough to convince me! Lots of different religions have claims based
	on the same kinds of "evidence" that Christians refute because it
	doesn't fall in line with their beliefs. Why should christianity be
	afforded any higher status?

		You speak of "work done on it" - care to elaborate?

	My belief in "god" runs pretty parallel, but on a lesser probability
	level to that of the existance of UFOs. So far the evidence that they
	have actually landed here, or were actually seen - looks false; however
	the likelyhood that higher intelligent lifeforms exist is probably high!
	The concept of a *person* - "god" - who made everything and loves
	human beings and used to smite and destroy citys and people and who
	is "testing" our love for an eternity of pain or bliss seems absurd
	to me. The concept of a "god" of unknown characteristics is possible
	but not probable, especially the more we learn of the apparant
	origins of the universe.


===============================================================================
			George S. La Belle

Software Engineer			(503) 696-2149
Intel Corp.				ccm!george_labelle@intelhf.intel.com
Hillsboro, Oregon			WB6YZZ
ARRL, NARAL, ACLU, CSICOP, NTH, ABC
"The worst day fishing is better than the best day working"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: SLOW DOWN!!
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 09:22:32 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


In article <sbuckley.712267520@sfu.ca>,
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

><SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>..................................  Talk.religion.MISC,
>>remember?  If your ukase limits the discussion to a Christian frame of
>>reference it might be more appropriate to take it to an exclusively
>>Christian netgroup or mailing list.  Christian diktats for Christians,
>>Mr. Gross.  This is an open group and the limits you seek to impose
>>are inappropriate.

>  and by the same token, the limits you seek to impose are similarly
>inappropriate.  if you want a group about misc religion but with no
>christianity, you'd probly have to start
>talk.religion.misc.no.christianity.
>and then you'd probly have to moderate it rather severely.

You need a course in reading and study skills.

No where in what I wrote is it even implied that Christians should not
participate in the discussion on talk.religion.misc.  It is, however,
quite inappropriate to take a topic of general interest - as Mr. Gross
did - and attempt to generalissimo the discussion so that it conforms
to his extremely limited sectarian view and essentially attempts to
exclude persons with other views.

Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rlwinter@taco.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:40:13 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

Speaking of evidence~

I understand there is a file floating around that critically examines Josh
McDowell's _Evidence_that_Demands_a_Verdict_.  Could someone either mail it
to me, post it here, or direct me to an archive containing it?  Thanks in
advance,

Rick
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Michigan
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:55:38 GMT


In article <LAURAF.92Jul23142629@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:


>>>-Tim:
>>> Well I don't know about Corey, old son, but the book he mentions happens
>>> to have been the very publication which fell into my hands about ten years
>>> ago. It was my first encounter with creationist propaganda and, since my
>>> field is the humanities, I found many of the anti-evolution arguments in it
>>> pretty convincing. Luckily I went to a library and checked up as many of the
>>> quotes and footnotes in the book as I could and did a bit of reading on 
>>> evolution and anti-evolutionism (this is called looking at both sides of the
>>> story). I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of
>>> out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non
>>> sequiturs, errrors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual
>>> trick known to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious
>>> detail if you [...]

>> Please do!!!! I keep an open mind just as long as what is being said agrees 
>> with the bible.

> Gosh, how open. See above.

I accept the bible as Jehovah's word, which is far superior to that of mans.
Why would anyone want to go through channels when they can go right to the
source?!?!  (Men are imperfect; Jehovah is perfect.)

>> You are right, Tim, it does take courage to admit when one is wrong!!
>> However, I have a question: why is it JW's loss if Corey gives up
>> everlasting life for Satan's system, which as he well knows will be
>> destroyed very soon?

> As who "well knows"? If you mean Corey, I don't think Corey "well knows"
> this at all; indeed, Corey has recently shaken off this ludicrous belief
> among many others. Hallelujah, as it were. Corey now seems to possess the
> open mind which you clearly do not from your comments above.

On the contrary, Corey does know the teachings.  As far as believing them, that
is a different story.  That is funny you mention the word "Hallelujah".  Please
look it up in the dictionary.  It means "praise Jehovah"!

But I do have an open mind.  Just show me from the bible and I will listen.  As
I mentioned above, I have a tendency to accept the words of a "perfect creature"
before those of an "imperfect creature".

> As to whether this constitutes a loss for the JWs, well, I certainly
> hope it does.

No, it does not constitute a loss for JW.  It only constitutes a loss for Corey.

> Cheers

> Simon

Regards,
Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (FINAL SUMMARY)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:36:14 GMT

wolf@prosun.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler) writes:
: I think someone should stop this nonsens postings !
: 
: This serious newsgroup is not the right place for that.
: 
: If the author believes in some strange abilities of his daughter, he should
: post to alt.spleen or something else.

E-mail does not seem to have any effect on the idiot. Is there someone
who knows how to contact his system administrator/postmaster or whatever
to see about having this person talked to? 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lipscomb@lonestar.utsa.edu (David S. Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:53:52 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul29.134833.28005@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>In article <jWcqr*5h1@bkhouse.cts.com>, nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes:
>>
>
>> This is one of the fun parts of the Old Testament. Those who site it
>> as support for anti-homosexual arguments often are being *very* selective
>> about what they choose to read. There are few things more fascinating
>> than someone who says they read the Bible "literally", and find it
>> "inerrant in every word", yet ignore most of Leviticus and accuse others
>> of being "cafeteria Christians". I'll tell you what, folks: we all
>> so some shopping.
>>
>> Some examples from Leviticus 19: (Jerusalem Bible)
the new testement fulfilled the old testement.  therefore things that deal
with judism are now void. for example we dont have to peform animal sacrifices.
so using the old testement to dictate what a person should do is ludicrous
***flame on***
>
>[Examples of laws Christians conveniently ignore deleted]
>And let's not forget Numbers 5:12-31, where god not only approves of but
he does not tell people to perform abortions. he does the aborting himself
since God is the only one who has the right to take an innocent life.
improperly using the bible is a very evil thing to do.  he is the only one
who has the right to abort. we are his creations and he can do what ever he
wants to do with us.  but we hav no right to take another life that has done
nothing to deserve it.

>COMMANDS that abortions be performed on women suspected of adultery. This
>is the ONLY place the Bible directly addresses the subject of abortion...
>have you ever heard a fundie anti-choice preacher address it?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Norman R. Kraft 			   INET  : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
>> Senior Partner				   UUCP  : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
>> Argus Computing 			   GENIE : N.KRAFT3
>> San Diego, CA				
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Bj|rn Alsberg <alsberg@math.uio.no>
Subject: Lilith - the first person created by God?
Organization: University of Oslo
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:24:09 GMT





The story about Lilith



Where can I get a translated version (to english) of the story
about Lilith? I've read somewhere that Lilith was the first person
before Adam and Eve to be created by God. 
Why is this story not in the Bible? Was it because a woman
was chosen to be the first human being ...?

Thanks in advance!


Bj|rn Alsberg
Dept. of Chemistry
Univ. of Bergen
e-mail: alsberg@delphi.uio.no




Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13057 talk.origins:8948
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:50:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.132015.17155@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> napo@cs.hut.fi (Hannu Napari) writes:
> >You are again claiming to be a biologist? Trying to see as many birds
> >as possible, ie being an ornithologist doesn't make you a biologist.
> >Is this pride or lying? But anyway, enjoy your swim. 8) 
> 
> 	Besides, I'm far more biologist than mr. C. Darwin. 

  Who merely proposed (and quite hesitantly) the theory in it's original form. 
Evolution, as it stands now, bears almost no relation to the one proposed by
Darwin.  When you say you know better than the creator of Evolution, you are
really saying you know better than thousands of PhD biologists, geneticists, and
even most ornithologists.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:26:25 GMT

Sangyong Jeo writes:
>Just curious, folks.
>Why is it so difficult for the followers of any organized religion
>to accept that the claim of salvation in any other religion is as
>valid as their own ?
>And the logical implication that follows ?
>No quoting any texts, please. The same question above can be asked
>about the text.

Because some organized religions claim as their basic tenets that salvation
is only reached in one particular way.  The Christians, for instance,
believe that there is one God, who has contacted people in a specific way,
And that his Son came that we might have salvation through Him, and
no other way.  Why believe the text that says that is better than any other?
Because it's not just supposed to be "a text," but a recording of the words
of the Savior.  This leads to a logical decision.  Either the individual
was sent by God, and knew what he was talking about, or he didn't.
So then either he was right and salvation is found only through him,
or he was not and was therefore just a dweeb who could give no salvation.
Either way, it does not allow for more than one to be right.  Either
that religion and that one only is right, or it is wrong.

The problem with a universalist view such as this one is that it does not
take into account the actual contents of the various religions it tries to
join.  Let's say I start my own new religion saying "I am saved, and
no one else."  Am I then saved by this religion?  How can it be true
if someone else can do the same?  Saying "everybody is saved" is just fine
as long as you don't get into the "everybody's" religion.

This also presents a pretty cheesy view of God.  To believe in universalism
you must believe in a God.  One that requires nothing of you.  One that
ignores anything you might do, because you are saved no matter what.  One
might wonder what there is to be "saved" from if God is like that, as well as
wonder why he would make us if there is no interaction between us and him.

Ernest Mueller
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Singular Salvation
Summary: Follow me and be FREE!
Keywords: Don't be led astray by the words of a mere mortal!
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:44:34 GMT
	<l7bjghINNdd@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <12557@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul29.102337.1994@u.washington.edu>

In article <1992Jul29.102337.1994@u.washington.edu> 
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>But my point really is that deities and religions are creations of the
>human beings, not the other way around.

That's right. God created man in his own image and man returned the favor. But
which came first, the chicken or the egg, the mother or the boy, God or man?

>From that view point, "salvation", or in more general term, happiness and 
>freedom, has to be achieved by individuals by their own effort not by 
>something or someone else however powerful that outside force may seem.

Yes, it is the time of the individual. We are free, it is only a matter of
fulfilling the role. Roma backwards is amor!
From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Old Covenant and New (was Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:29:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <sbuckley.712259994@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:


>  christians are christians because they acknowledge the new testament,
>the new covenant in jesus as updating/fulfilling/replacing the laws in
>the old testament/covenant.  i acknowledge god's words in the old testament
>to be god's, but i also acknowledge that his new covenant with me [and with
>all of us] replaces the old laws.
>
[Deleted part...]

>  that would be to disregard the context of the bible.  sex within marriage
>is sanctioned [so celibacy is not required].  and the new covenant through
>jesus replaces the laws that would have bound me to the old covenant if it
>if the new one didn't come along.

I don't see how updating and replacing are consistent with fulfilling
(which is the word Jesus used).  I don't remember 'updating' or
'replacing' coming up.  In some sense wasn't the old covenant broken? 
Also, what "laws" would bind a person to the old covenant? 

From a truth seeker,
"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Alim
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:10:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Assalamu `alaykum,

  I went to the recent ICNA conference. There, one of the tables demonstrated
a software called The Alim. The Alim is an "Islamic Study Toolkit". It offers
the entire text of:
  - The Qur'an in Arabic
  - Transliteration of the Qur'an
  - Yusuf `Ali's translation
  - Yusuf `Ali's commentary
  - M. Pickthall's translation
  - All nine volumes of Sahih Bukhary
  - Islamic Subjects Database
  - Maududi Sura information
  - Chronological History of Islam
  - Biographies of Companions
  - Islamic terms dictionary

  The Alim runs a clean and powerful text based windowing system. Several
windows can be run at once. It also has a powerful pattern searching feature.

  The databases are cross-referenced. Separate modules can be purchased, they
include Sahih Muslim, Tirmizy, Al-Muwatta and Assad's translation among other
volumes.

  The standard package has an introductory price of $99.00 and costs $149.95
in retail. Macintosh, Windows, OS/2 and OSF/Motif support is expected in
the first quarter of 1993. I saw the package and it is EXCELLENT. It is
certainly worth the price. If were to buy the books in paper form it would
cost more than $100, plus you would not be able to cross reference or
search.

  The current version is distributed on 7 high density DOS disks and when
decompressed takes 15Mb on a Hard Disk. You need at least 1.5Mb on your Hard
Disk to run the Software and you can decompress the components you need. You
also need EGA graphics or better. It also runs on a Macintosh with Soft-AT.

  The Software was developed over six years by a two person company called
ADVENT (800-397-5561). It is distributed by IQRA Bookcenter: 800-521-ICRA
or 312-274-2665.

  I have no affiliation to ADVENT or to IQRA, but I am most impressed.

Assalamu `alaykum,

Mazen Mokhtar
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (#Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: What Mark says the Jehovah's Witnesses do
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:21:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In Message<1992Jul24.220459.2805@e2big.mko.dec.com>                             
Mark Sornson writes:                                                            
                                                                                
>    That's like saying that weathermen and major broadcasting systems          
>broadcast major storm warnings for the satisfaction of saying "I told          
>you so" once the storm hits                                                    
                                                                                
Actually, I've been told by more than one Jehovah's Witness that they're        
looking foreward to the end of the world, when all non-Witnesses will           
be destoryed, so that I will see they were right, and I was wrong.              
You don't get much pettier than that.                                           
                                                                                
>weathermen and broadcasters guilty of 'ravings' because they were              
>wrong?  Of course not ... it's just that their sincere attempts to             
>interpret the facts to the best of their abilities weren't able to             
>guarantee that they *wouldn't* be wrong.  And of course, no one faults         
>them for good intentions.                                                      
                                                                                
Comparing a weatherman with Christians trying to predict when the end           
of the world will be?  Mark, the weatherman's handbook doesn't tell             
him that "no forecaster will know the day it will rain".  The                   
Bible tells Christians that no one will know the day the end comes.             
Christians should not even *try* to do the things the Watchtower                
Society has sold so many magazines doing.   Predictive chronology               
is of itself non-Christian.   Besides, the weatherman doesn't claim             
that his forecast is a "spiritual feast", "meat in due season from God",        
etc, like the Witness headquarters does.  The Witness founder, Charles          
Russell, went so far as to say that he could not have written all of            
his books/magazines by himself, it was only with the help of the                
Holy Spirit he was able to.  B-I-G differences, Mark.                           
                                                                                
===============================================================                 
Walter Smith                                                                    
smith_w@apollo.hp.com                                                           
                                                                                
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The LDs and the Space Potato (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:15:52 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc.

Jason says:
> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:
> [...]
> > The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
> > than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
> > being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
> > Carolinas.
>
> Oh no, here we go again.

Sorry, I dont know what you mean by that.

> Couldn't you used Aesop's Fables, Norse, Greek, or Mayan mythology
> instead of trying to indirectly slam the LDS?

I suppose any myth would have fit the purpose, but I have always
enjoyed the LDs one.

> I've never heard the one about Noah launching the Ark from the
> Carolinas before, but Garden of Eden, Missouri, USA I have.
>
> And since these things happened *before* the Flood, who really
> knows if the geographycal locations were the same before and
> after?

Thats wonderful.  If only those who posted Hannu's employer
could have utilized the same LDs logic, 'who really knows if'
there is not a great Space Potato.

> More importantly, what difference does it *really* make?

Exactly.  'what differnce does it *really* make' if a man in
Finland wants to believe the utterances of his 5 year old
daughter to be divine, versus the utterances of Joseph Smith
who once claimed as a seer that the moon is inhabited by people
who dress like Quakers?

If those were my only choices, I would beleive in the Space Potato.

Mark
<My opinions are my own>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc