HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:48:02 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714450274@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   both answers are yes.  all sins have been forgiven.  but that was
>> just good friday.  on easter sunday, jesus was resurrected and provided
>> with eternal life along with all who accept the sacrifice.  with our
>> free will, we must choose to come to god in jesus for salvation.  so
>> an atheist is forgiven, but to receive eternal life, one must accept jesus
>> as saviour.

>I see, the GIFT that has a small footprint stating that one has to
>accept certain rules. Once, and for all, this is *not* a free gift.
>If this was the case, the atheist would get a *free salvation* and
>receive eternal life, without selling his/her soul to a particular
>brand of Christianity. 

  the forgiveness is free and undeserved, accepting jesus has costs.
like enduring the scorn of skeptics in here.  :)

---                          
     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
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:22:31 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:

>Yet again, the issue of omnipotence clearly states that a being
>is able to create whatever, including perfect situations. God was
>not able to create a perfect situation. That implies that he's not
>omnipotent.

  no that's not the implication.  granting humans free will means he
won't necessarily create whatever he wants all the time.

>> >Why doesn't god speak to me?
>>   god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>> tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

>Note that this is true of most other mythological beings, such as Zeus
>or Oden. A true omnipotent God should manifest itself to any intelligent
>being.

  except when that person doesn't want to see god.  the bible says that
in that case, that person will not see god.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: The Light
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:20:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.080059.22172@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>WOW!
>Hey!  Look at this!

	mmm? Oh. uh, no, thanks.

>No, seriously!  Turn around and just take a look at this!

	um, I already see what you're looking at. Sorry, just not interested.

Ha! That's because you don't have my superior vision! My vast stores of
Knowledge! My superlative grasp of the Truth! My scintillating intellect!!
My good grades!!! My...

	Yeah, yeah...later, Ace.    (arrogant shithead)

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:17:56 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Steve Gross) writes:

 ---- Is it a possibility that when God created Lucipher, he created him
 good?  Doesn't the bible say that he (lucipher) was filled with knowlege,
 the most beautiful angel etc...   That sounds pretty good to me.  God
 being omniscient surely would have known about lucipher's eventual evil. 
 But, is it so impossible to think that while he foreknew what was going to
 happen, he allowed it so that it would be for his glory.  Everyone is so
 quick to blame God, or attribute evil to God, when this simply is not the
 case.

I get the impression that you think I am saying something like
"Since god created evil, god is evil". I wish to do nothing of
the kind, I merely wanted to point out that if (according to
your theology if I am getting it correctly) god created everything,
and if god has some amount (if not total) omniscience, then god
also created the conditions necessary for evil to exist in this world.

Dano
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:58:15 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.230154.8103@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> In article <Bu0KC0.Fxw@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>>I won't even bother with your moral supremacy position, how your
>>belief is obviously true while somebody else's is merely hope.
> 
> First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
> faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
> 

Ask any devout Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu, any devout North American Indian
or Jew, or, any New Ager or any Wiccan or animist....

Newsflash: World population -- approx. 5 billion.
	   Christians --  approx 1.2 billion
	   Non- Christians ---  approx 3.8 billion!!!

Newsflash --- world's fastest growing religion:  ISLAM.

Newsflash --- a "conversion war" is currently on in Africa between
	Christian and Islamic missionaries. Who is winning? Which
	faith is answering more people's spiritual needs? ISLAM.

John, old, buddy, if statistics are any indication, Christianity is FAR
from the "sole provider of assurance of Truth" that you assert that it is.
It never cease to amaze how ignorant the average Christian is WRT other
religious traditions....

> I don't recall any posts where a non-Christian relates a wholistic assurance
> in their belief (i.e. through all aspects of human thought, including reason,
> emotion, experience, gut feelings, etc, etc.).  None who are as blatantly
> stubborn about their position. :-)  

Ha! Ever heard of Islamic Jihad? Ever heard of the Buddhist monks who burn
themselves alive for causes they feel are right? If THAT'S not "wholistic
assurance" I don't know what is...!
 
> Could it be that they are not as sure?

You TRY and win an argument with an Islamic missionary. Good luck!!

> They base their beliefs only on reason and intellectual feasability, whereas
> the Christian will acknowledge that reason is an issue, but by far not the
> sum total of religious experience.  There are some on the other end as well.
> 
> John M.

Jumpin jiminy! Ever heard of the Sufis? Ever heard of Hindu "illumination" or
Buddhist "enlightenment?" Ever read or heard ANYTHING about Native American
religion?  John, buddy, your posts on this net display a _shocking_ ignorance
of history, other religious traditions, and current affairs. I'm not going
to give you any advice...but still...it is VERY hard to take you seriously.
It's like listening to lectures on calculus from a man who obviously can't
even multiply...

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:30:46 GMT

In article <la7brdINN76a@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>                                        How could you decide to believe
> something based on some grounds other than whether it's true or false?  (For
> that matter, how can one decide to believe something at all?)
>There are other grounds for making decisions about empirically
>untestable propositions than veracity (which of course is
>excluded by definition): pragmatism would be one attitude:
>i.e., I may have a notion that may not be empirically testable,
>yet for a moment, I will assume it's validity in order to
>take the next step and THEN I will assess its usefulness
>in a pragmatic way.

"Try something to see if it works" is not the same as "believe"....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Poetry
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:35:38 GMT
Organization: Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations!
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

  I've read bits of the Qur'an (in translation) and find it very beautiful 
 poetry, very different in style from the KJV (which is the benchmark for
 poetry in English) but still beautiful.  Alas - it seems pretty likely that

I beg to differ. Saying that the bible is the benchmark for
poetry in English ignores a pretty huge group of people. . . :-)

---
Dano
1st Warning Department
Sub-Assistant 1st Class to the
Junior Associate Undersecretary
Petty Offenses Division
Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:51:53 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <17h4u3INN9da@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>>BEGIN THE QUIZ

>	[I'll do this from memory; I don't expect to be able to get
>everything]

Well, you certainly got a lot that I didn't know, but I must correct some
errors.  To save bandwidth I'll only show the responses I am correcting.


>>	According to traditional attributions, who is the major
>>	author of the New Testament?  The second author?  Were
>>	either of these with Jesus during his travels and
>>	preachings? 

>	Paul and John. Neither had known JC directly, though Paul
>claimed to have had a vision of him.

John was in fact one of the twelve apostles, and is referred to as "the 
one who Jesus loved", "the beloved disciple", etc. in the Gospel of John.
OK, it's questionable whether he actually wrote what he is said to have 
written, especially 1, 2, and 3 John, but he asked for traditional attributions.

>>	According to traditional attributions, how many of the
>>	original twelve apostles contributed to the New Testament?

>	Four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


Nope. Just two. Matthew and John.  Mark travelled with Paul, and I'm not
sure what Luke did, though I _think_ he is mentioned somewhere in Acts
(although he himself wrote that) or one of Paul's letters.  

>>	Who was the thirteenth apostle?  How would Christianity
>>	be different if he had not become Christian?

>	Paul. 

Well, if you don't count the one chosen to replace Judas (Mattias, I
think, or something like that).  But from the second question here,
I guess the poster of the quiz was referring to Paul.  (Or is it a
trick question?)

>>END OF QUIZ
-- 
--Ron Stieger
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
"Everybody wants a rock to wind a piece of string around."-They Might Be Giants
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15549 alt.atheism:16471
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: A Message for ERIC RESCORLA.
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:37:03 MST

A message for Eric Rescorla:

Eric,

I received your e-mail to me of a few days ago.  I thought I had put it
in a "save" folder in nfsmail, but somehow it was deleted.  I've tried
to e-mail you back, but the mail bounces -- perhaps I have an old address?

Anyway, please re-send your last e-mail to me with your current e-mail
address....OK?

Thanks,

Jim    Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:00:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <sbuckley.714987967@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>More importantly - the fact that he created them anyway shows that he 
>>WANTED people in existence who would sin and not repent.
>>If he hadn't wanted them, he wouldn't have created them. 
> 
>   i think you're being unfair to the notion of free will.  i'll grant
> that he could know we'd choose sin, but with his offer of salvation,
> to be taken only through choosing it, we get to use our free will again
> to fix the error, thus there are two directions we can go in free
> will.  but there is no reason for you to say he wants some of to not
> repent; for you to be correct in this, some would not be able to
> choose salvation after being presented with it.  

Aggghhhh..... I don't want to explain this all again... This is all covered
is detail in the posts titled "The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams)."
Take a look at those and THEN blow me out of the water... :)

note - All that is necessary for this to be correct is that God has 
FOREKNOWLEDGE of who will accept him and who won't before he actually 
creates anybody.

>>The fact is: God created a universe in which evil exists (i.e. people would
>>turn away from him, as this is the definition of evil.)  He created people
>>who HE KNEW would turn away from him and therefore be liable to damnation.
>>If he is really omnipotent, he didn't have to do this. But he did. So he
>>must WANT a certain number of people to be separate from him for all eternity.
>>Hard luck if you happen to be one of 'em. 
> 
>
> and this whole debate hinges on predestination, something you can read
> dozens of books on written by christians over the last few hundred years.

Nyet! Nyet! No! No! NOT predestination, which is a whole different issue.
We're talking about FOREKNOWLEDGE, which is accepted conservative Christian
doctrine. Read the paragraph above your response again. All that is 
necessary for God to be a rotten S.O.B is that he have FOREKNOWLEDGE of
what free choice his creations will make. If you accept this, then you
HAVE to accept that he created people KNOWING that they would freely
damn themselves. Since he is omnipotent - he didn't have to do this!
He could have just refused to create those who he KNEW were going to
damn themselves. He didn't (says the doctrine), so therefore he must
have CHOSEN DELIBERATELY to create people who he KNEW would freely choose
to reject him.  

THEREFORE he must WANT this situation (people freely choosing to damn 
themselves) to be the case.  There is no way out, comrade. Why do you think
so many "liberal" Christians reject the notion of a literal hell? 
Because this doctrine forces one to the conclusion that God takes pleasure
in the damnation of some of his children. Read the posts to Steve Adams
for more detail. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15010 sci.physics:13672 sci.chem:3258
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:54:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.174143.20940@oclc.org> 
jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>Do you believe in the doctrine of Original Sin?

Well, this is just a silly sales gimick. If I said yes then you would tell me
of all sorts of things that I must do and buy now that I admit that I believe
in the doctrine of Original Sin. We are human beings, that is what we are.
If you feel the need to call that Original Sin, that doesn't bother me.

>If not, this doesn't apply to you as I replied to a similar response.

Oh, oh, but wait a minute. I can still qualify for the great free gift, can't
I? Please don't go away, there must be something I can buy from you? Really,
I'm a miserable sinner. There must be something you can sell me to releive
my pain? I need something to hide the pain of life for now and something to 
give me eternal life free from the pain of life later on, do you sell that? You
see I hate life so much that I never want to leave. And you ask me if I
believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, honey I LIVE the doctrine. Let me
tell ya! I could tell you stories that would melt the skin off your back! Is
it getting hot in here?

>If so, is the suffering and misery in the world really necessary to accomplish
>all the things you describe?  

Ah, hmm. OK, how about this: Joyful participation in the sorrows of the word.
Make any sense? Life is not life without death. Good is not good without bad.
This is not a penalty. This just is. This is the meaning of knowledge. You
will be leaving your role as human being soon enough. Why not live the life
of a human being while you are a human being and die as a proper human being
when the time comes to play that role?

>Will there be suffering and misery in heaven?  

Heaven is right here right now only most don't see it. Hell is not seeing it.
Does that answer your question? Life and death are just one of the many pairs
of opposites that we see as reality. Study the differences and you will see
how they are the same. In the similarities, you will find unity, unity of
oneness. Bring together all colors of light and you get the oneness of white.

>Will you have free will there?  

When you die to your human being, you will no longer be a human being.

>Will it be worth experiencing without the possibility of suffering?

You will experience death, you can decide on the worth of it then. While you
are living, why not experience both the joy and sorrow of life? Worth? Living
a good life and doing the right thing is its own reward.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:23:15 GMT

Paraphrased from a book by Stanislaw Lem...

A computer scientist creates the ultimate simulation of a world and is
able to look in on it.  Within this world, there are millions
(billions) of "people" carrying out  their lives, etc.  [As a tie in
to the creationist thread: Last Tuesdayism with an omipotent being
creating a world...]  Anyway, this scientist's funding gets cut off
and he must turn off the computer.  Is he a mass murderer?

Note: Literal answers posted to the net are not acceptable.  Think
about the implications philosophically before responding.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Why has government been instituted at all?
Field Robotics Center,          | Because the passions of man will not con-
Carnegie Mellon University      | form to the dictates of reason and justice
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | without constraint.  Alexander Hamilton
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
Subject: Setterfield (and his theories)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:37:49 GMT

I just read some of Barry Setterfield's wokr and all I can say is :

IT'S A GOOD THEORY   *NOT*!!!!!


It's just bullshit.. all of it.

Comments?

Paal
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:12:47 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

 (Douglas Graham) wrote to Gregg Skinner:

  Gregg, you know and I know that there are infinitely better solutions
  to the population problem, right?

Gregg Skinner replies:
 
 Yes.
 
  Mr. Graham:

  So don't you think I'm justified
  in saying that those who seek to prevent the implementation of those
  vastly superior solutions seem to want to destroy life on the planet?
 
 Mr. Skinner:

 No, I do not.  I think I can understand the point of view of those who
 choose this solution.  I can see their reasoning; it is rational.

Hmmm. I have to agree with Mr. Graham on this one (the sky is falling!);
a (religious) movement which seeks to enforce its moral code on others,
at the expense of all (i.e., overpopulation hurts everybody and
denying knowledge and access of/to birth control based on relgious
principles), does seem to me to indicate that the group in question
cares more for archaic principles than the quality of life now and
in the future.

Dano
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: This pi "thang"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug31.143636.16733@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<ksand-010992175026@wintermute.apple.com> <1992Sep4.091437.8888@hsr.no>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.091437.8888@hsr.no> paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
 writes:

   >The bible is *wrong*!!!
   >This is the real value of pi:

   >Get it????

  This is a religious posting, right? You're trying to illustrate
the futility of finite man attempting to comprehend the infinity
of God.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14985 sci.skeptic:15110
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 23:10 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug26.063646.12275@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes...
>>[JJL:]
>>Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
>>creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
>>intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
>>of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intellig
>nt
>>life created in the latter manner has autonomy?
>>
>Cause maybe if the raw materials were there it might have sprung into it's
>own being, but if they weren't then an act of will would have bben needed?
> 
>Big Al.  I dunno, sounds like a good explination to me.

Not to me.  Why would an intelligent being have autonomy if created
in a situation in which "it might have sprung into its own being" but
not if created in a situation where it could not have spontaneously
arisen?  Both hypothesized cases involve "an act of will" on the part
of the creator.  Why should *either* case give the creator the right
to do anything it likes with his creation?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14934 alt.atheism:15951
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:04:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug26.132553.22606@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
>planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
>will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
>exist regardless of the actions of humans.

That depends on how successful humans are at overcoming adverse
conditions, such as the planet's decreased 'livability'. Remember,
without restraints the population curve is exponential. How long
would it take for the mass of human beings to be greater than
the mass of the earth if our population doubled every, say, 50
years? A soft ballpark figure looks something like between 150 and 
200 years.