HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Get a life
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:59:16 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Jesus died for those who believe not for every human.  
>What?  This is way off base.  He died for ALL, so that sins might be
>forgiven.  Whether or not we chose to believe is the issue.  All people can
>access the salvation presented by Jesus!

   unless you don't believe and accept his sacrifice.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:48:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <LAURAF.92Jul31094451@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>In article <ntlt0hg@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>>-Laura:
>>> Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend how 
>>> man could just evolve. Humans today cannot create life or duplicate 
>>> the healing process of the body. Does all this not account for something?

>>-CJ:
>> Argument by incredulity & ignorance is not persuasive argument.
>> Your personal inability to comprehend something says nothing one
>> way or the other about its truthfulness.  So your argument indeed 
>> counts for nothing.

>-Laura:
> CJ, I was not speaking out of ignorance.  After reading about the theories of
> evolution, they do NOT follow a logical, deductive, and concise pattern.

What have you read which has left this impression? Surely not Watchtower
publications?

What do you consider to be the principal weaknesses in the current
understanding of evolutionary theory and of common descent?

I would suggest that you read talk.origins for a while, but given
the effect it had on Corey, making him realise the extent to which
he had been lied to by WTBTS, I guess you may not want to, so I've
resisted the temptation to crosspost there.

However, if you're serious about finding out what evolution is actually
about, that's the place to do it.

I have a copy of a FAQ on evolution written by one Chris Colby, a
regular contributor to talk.origins and an evolutionary biologist,
which I'll happily mail you if you like.

> Laura

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Search for religious software
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:48:09 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

snoopy@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:


>Greetings, 
> I am in search of IBM-PC compatible software that is related to religion.
>My church has recently welcomed a new minister and after a short conversation
>with him I have found that he wants to put the church roster, etc. into the
>computer. If you know of any software that would be useful for a church,
>please e-mail me at the address below. I have access to FTP! Any programs:
>public domain, shareware, freeware, or other would be great.

	At least nic.funet.fi in /pub/msdos/*** has KJV Bible and a stupid 
	Biblical game. 

				Andreas

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:35:19 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <22007@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:

>Does an almighty God exist?
>Einstein thought so.

_Nature_, v. 358, p. 102 (9 July 1992) printed a letter from 
G.H. Raner, Jr., who reports what Einstein wrote to him on this 
subject. Raner asked Einstein about the claim, made by a Jesuit 
priest, that he had convinced Einstein "that a supreme 
intelligence governs the Universe." Einstein denied having 
spoken to a Jesuit priest. In a letter to Raner dated 2 July 
1945, Einstein wrote, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I
am, of course, and have always been an atheist...". In response
to a letter from Raner pointing out that to a Jesuit priest
in the climate of that time, anyone not a Roman Catholic
would have been an atheist, Einstein wrote in a letter
dated 28 September 1949, "...I have repeatedly said that
in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike
one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share
the crusading spirit of the professional athiest whose fervor 
is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the
fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the
weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and
of our own being."

I think that it is contrary to the spirit of Truth
for Evangelists of any stripe to misappropriate the words
of others, to make it appear that they believe differently 
from how they actually do. I am sure that when Jesus said 
"You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free," 
he did not mean that it is OK to lie for Jesus when preaching
the Gospel. You cannot support Truth with falsehood.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:19:46 GMT

George La Belle writes:

>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.

>	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?

  if you can believe through those texts that jesus made an appearance [if you
actually do believe so], why can you not accept the testimony of those same
texts that claim he is the son of god?

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

  i don't have my stats book with me, but the bible has been studied more
than any other written document in the history of planet earth written 
documents.  more tests intended to support or refute its authenticity have
been performed on the bible than on any other document.

>	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. 

  well i see god as purely good, purely just [which means he must punish sin;
the punishment being death [originally enacted on us by god sending us out
of the garden of eden so we could not retain our immortality by having access
to the tree of life]], and all loving to the point where he sent his only
son to bear the consequences [death] of all our sins so that we may come
back to god.  is it the biblical notion of god's justice that seems absurd
to you?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Singular Salvation
Keywords: jingle, jingle, jingle, hoe, hoe, hoe
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:45:45 GMT

In article <12557@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Good points, I somewhat slammed Christianity in a prior post, but there are
>some enlightened forms that acknowledge the validity of all religions. And as 
>you say, Judaism only claims that He who's name is not to be said is the only 
>God of the Jewish Tribe. It makes no claims about the validity or evilness of
>the religions of other tribes, except that they should not be practiced by
>members of the Jewish Tribe.

You seem to have a weird idea of Judaism here.

I know you consider it praise to say that Judaism doesn't say that the gods
of other religions don't exist, but it _does_ say exactly that.  Judaism does
say it is OK for non-Jews to do worship which is intended to be heard by other
gods, but that doesn't mean that Jews believe that those other gods might
actually be around to listen to it.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Luke 14:26 was (Dan Quayle disagrees with Jesus) was (blessed are the fishmongers ...
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.224301.27691@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>The claim I am making about the context is simply this:
>In Luke 14:26, Jesus is not talking about family relations.
>The whole discussion is on the cost of being a follower, on the cost of being
>a disciple.  The statements in this narrative must be interpreted with 
>reference to the issue being discussed. If you wish to conclude that Jesus 
>preached hatred of family, you need to find a passage where Jesus is 
>teaching about family relations. 

Now you got me confused. So let's see if I got this right. Jesus says if
you want to be a follower of Him, the cost (of that "free gift") is you must 
HATE your family and even yourself. Is that correct? Now assuming that to
be correct, you are saying that that only refers to if you want to be a
follower of Jesus. You are saying that doesn't apply if you want to raise
a family? But how can you raise a family free of HATE and still be a follower
of Jesus at the same time? Is that not possible? Are you saying that no one
should be a follower of Jesus because he preached HATE but we should follow
what he says elsewhere on the family as long as it doesn't involve HATE? Are
you saying that if you want to follow Jesus, you must be schizophrenic? If
someone asks you if you are a follower you say, "Yes I HATE all, even my
mother, even myself", but if someone asks about your family you say, "Yes, I
have a beautiful loving family that is nothing but LOVE"? Can you please
explain the idea of context you see? Are you a follower of Jesus? Do you
follow all of His rules? Did Jesus preach a "mixed message"? Was His
message different for married men than for single men? Are you accusing Jesus
of being a fisher of men, a free gift peddler, a grifter?
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<drice.711701689@ponder> 
	<1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
	<12394@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul22.045741.12128@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<l6r73oINN8d4@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:35:17 GMT

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

>I read somewhere about the "Anchor Bible" and I haven't seen
>it mentioned in this thread; it was recommended as ~the~ 
>reference work for scholars. As I will be attending seminary
>in the fall, I suppose I could wait, but I wanted to know if
>any of you had heard of it, and how large it was. . .

It's enormous.  It's also incomplete.  The project has been going on
since the 1960's, and about 50 volumes out of a projected 70+ have been
issued.  Unpublished volumes include all of Exodus, the second half of
Leviticus, Numbers, the second half of Deuteronomy, the first part of
Isaiah, half of Exekiel, Romans, and a number of others.  The more
recent volumes tend to be larger than the older ones: Genesis, which
came out in the 1960's was about 400 pages, while the *first half* of
Leviticus, recently published, is around a thousand.

The authors of the various volumes are all authorities in their fields
and include Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars.  The complete
set of published volumes will probably set you back about a thousand
dollars.  If you want to start collecting them, Christian Book
Distributors has them all at discount prices.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 2 of 2)
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:14:53 GMT
Organization: Why this?
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

NU169273@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes:

<A long missive apparently to show that Jews>
<are mistaken in their beliefs, wrapping up
<with:>

>K. Paulson                  (Have you been washed in His BLOOD for)
>Bible college student       (the forgiveness of all your sins?    )
>1109 16th Street North #1
>Fargo, ND  58102

I understand things must be a bit dull in Fargo, but I don't 
really understand the purpose of your post. Are you here to
give us the "good news"? If so, I suggest you head over to
alt.good.news. . .

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt)
Subject: Re: Lilith, the Night Hag
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:56:59 GMT

Somewhere in my studies, I can't remember where, I came accross an interesting
retelling of the Lillith myth... we studied it pretty extensively, at one
point or another... basically, it recounts the story of how Lilith was
expelled from the garden (don't remember why at this point) and how Eve
discovers her accidentally one day, and, because of her restlessness at
the staidness of being entrapped in her role as wife to Adam, without any
opportunity for personal growth, and because she is entranced by the concept
of there existing another being like her, talks to her... and develops a
relationship, and experiences personal growth... and eventually, Jehovah
discovers the relationship, and is freaked out, but the women tell him that
things aren't going to go on as usual... basically, the moral being that
buy cutting themselves off from Lilith and what she represents, they've
repressed an important vital part of themselves, and that reintergrating 
it into the life of the community will make everything better in the end.

Wish I could remember where... thought it was in R.R. Ruether, but guess not...

Thom
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: witness
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:01:13 GMT
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <adams.712591294@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
}I don't believe you know what you are talking about.  The latest writing is
}aproximately 100AD, give or take a few years.  Paul's letters were
}completed by 67AD when he died.  The other letters are from the period
}60-90AD.  The Gospel dates range from as early as 50AD to as late as
}100AD.

I hope that you don't think that Saul, also known as Paul, is suppose to
be taken as a witness.  He never met Jesus.  Or claimed to.  Why don't
you just refer to Jim & Tammy?

}The Gospels have sources other than simple eyewitness.

Like most of it isn't even CLAIMED as by eyewitnesses.

}Paul's writings are from 50-67AD (aprox) and lay out much of Christian
}theology.

Right.  But NOT as an eyewitness.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Jul26.045219.21460@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
	<MIB.92Jul27140205@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul27.203850.493@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203850.493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Jul27140205@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >The Synoptics use a number of suggestive titles, with two being most
   >prominent: "Son of God" and "Son of Man".  Son of God is frequently
   >used in a sense specific to Jesus.  For example, at his baptism (Matt.
   >3:17) he is called God's Son, in a way not normally seen, nor
   >applicable to people in general.  The Son of Man was an eschatological
   >figure of judgement and completion of humanity, carrying divine
   >authority and power.

   The "Son of Man" is a reference to the Daniel. "Son of Man" in Aramaic
   is simply idiomatic for "human being." And, in fact, Daniel uses
   "a figure like a Son of Man" or somesuch wording. The verse seems
   to refer to the Messiah, who, being of the lineage of David, would
   take on divine qualities. (Kings in the Ancient Near East were frequently
   considered to be the adopted son of the deity. Cf. Kirta/Aqhat).

   Hence, neither Son of Man nor Son of God is really a direct claim
   to be the deity.  Not that you implied otherwise. Just trying to
   clear things up a bit.

The term Son of God, as used in the Gospels, clearly identifies Jesus
as unique.  It is applied to him in ways different from its occasional
application to other people.  The NT refers to our ability to be "sons
of God" (1 John 3:1-2), so clearly that alone isn't it.  But the
synoptics consistently give the impression that there is a uniqueness
to the designation of Jesus.  I gave the example of Jesus' baptism.
If that is roughly analogous to the anointing of kings in Israel (and
I think it is), then note that kings of Israel did not have such
striking supernatural events associated with their ascendency.

Also, the Gospels were not written in the time of the Ancient Near
East, and the model of kingship in Israel was very different, as
recorded by the sources available to the gospels' authors.  

Your wording here is very interesting.  I mentioned, only
peripherally, that Son of Man was a title which carried connotations
of divine authority and power, and you seem to agree.  You don't say
anything about the title "Son of God", but then lump it in with "Son
of Man" in your final paragraph.  Since later Christian authors,
particularly those of John, Hebrews, and Revelation, expanded that
concept to be a fairly clear expression of divinity, I was
concentrating on that term.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: SLOW DOWN!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:05:20 GMT


<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>Perspective is what you are in large measure lacking, and this post is
>perhaps even more offensive that the previous one.  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.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:03:29 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

>> Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason
>> that he no longer believes that Jehovah exists.

> If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

Laura, are you for or against the purple dancing jellybeans on the dark
side of Saturn?

>>> ...and where is the contradiction?  I accept the bible as Jehovah's word,
>>> far superior to that of mans. If man disagrees with the bible, he is wrong!

>> Trouble is that in accepting The Bible as "Jehovah's word", *you* had to
>> make the judgement that it *is* indeed Jehovah's word. You trusted human
>> reason (i.e. your own) at that point.

> This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
> respect to the bible and JW organization. Everything made sense and was
> clear. There were no confusion involved. The fact that everythings around
> us had a creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even
> bigger things (e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

Unfortunately, you have inferred properties of a wide class of objects,
such as this planet, by generalising from the (truistic) property of
man-made objects that they have been made by man, without establishing
that there exists an overall equivalence which is adequate for that
generalisation to be made.

A logically equivalent argument is that since the top of a desk is
flat, so must the earth be. It simply doesn't follow because no general
equivalence between desktops and planets has been demonstrated.

>> To reject human reason thereafter ("If man disagrees with the bible, he
>> is wrong!") is inconsistent, since you have based your acceptance of The
>> Bible on your own human reason.

> Inconsistent? No! Would it be inconsistent to trust the theoretical
> findings of physicists, engineers, chemists, etc., after their theories
> have been proved?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer:
It would be inconsistent, having developed a theory based on evidence,
to declare that the theory *is* correct and that any conflicting evidence
which comes along must be wrong if it conflicts with the theory.

This is *precisely* what you do, and precisely my criticism of it.

> Regards,
> Laura

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 13:21:57 EDT
From: Jill Maree Thomas <34EP2A2@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This
 <1992Jul29.110516.28138@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>

*Pamela LaLond
 (temporarily under id 34ep2a2@.cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu)
     Hello, If you can bear with me for a minute.I'm new at this and
I am unsure how long you have been talking about this subject. If you
could indulge me and explain where you are at in respects to God. I
feel like I came in the middle of the conversation. Then it will give
me a chance to get things straight.I'm from Michigan and go to
Central Michigan University.My roommate is letting me use her account
until I can get one of my own. Thanks for your time.

*Pamela LaLond
(responses may be e.mailed to above address, no flames please.  JMT)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc