HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:54:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <e3Cq02lx2bpm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>
>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.

Hi Tony,

Perhaps you could post the definition from the Greek dictionary so
we could all make up our minds what it means instead of you
"forcing" your own belief onto the definition?

I've never heard more ludicrous logic than when I hear people try to
explain the nature of the God head.  Tony, if you have a room with
*ONLY* a length but without a height or width, guess what?  You do
not have a room that any three dimensional being could see or enter
into and rest for the night!  The same goes for no length or width
or for no length or height.  The correct conclusion for your
"example" would be that together they are one room, apart neither
of them is by itself a room.

>The issue of the Trinity is not simple to understand.  However, Scripture
>makes it really clear to us that there is ONLY ONE GOD, and then it calls
>the Father God, The Son God, and The Holy Spirit God.  We are forced to
>the conclusion of the Trinity.  I grant it that it is not easy to

The Bible only forces us to conclude as you say, the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are one God and yet each individually is God.  This
does not force us to the conclusion of the trinity as expressed by
the majority of protestants and the roman catholics.  The key is
understanding what is meant by "one God", and I have yet to see
evidence that the greek means what you say it does.  If 'one' in the
passage of discussion really means one in unity, then it goes to
support what Frank has said.  A football team can be 'one in unity'
but yet each player is his own individual self.

Robert  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:39:23 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov21.235743.3763@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
(Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Let me be very blunt about what we need from Mr. Sandvik.  He must
> either retract the claim that he is morally sound, or say something to
> counter my refutation of the claim.  Repeating "personal attack" again
> and again will not make his case.

> >To answer the specific question: Yes, I
> >have opinions about this issue.  To answer a question which may be
> >implied: No, I do not wish to share them at this time.

So unless you don't have any issues related to our theme of 
atheism and moral values, why are you then posting personal
issues that we could resolve using email?

Anyway, back to some more meaningful discussion. It seems 
many Christians have the view that primitive barbaric tribes
were atheist-oriented. I would like to know how this is the case,
and how one could map for instance Attila with atheism?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:09:07 GMT

In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
>know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?
>
>But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
>the original poster - through salvation.

Maybe not.  When sternly reprimanded for soiling the carpet,
my dog looks truly sorry for his sins:  droopy ears, rolling
over on his back, etc.  He would appear to be a candidate
for Salvation through Repentence.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:48:23 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
: In article <ksand-121192182635@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes...
: > 
: >Or maximize your chances, and believe in all religions, that would
: >not hurt, either.
: 
: Kent,
: 
: 	That doesn't seem to be too practical.
: 
: 	I find too much contradiction in the idea of a believing 
: polytheist/henotheist/monotheist seeking 
: salvation/enlightenment/cosmic consciousness by 
: works/grace/faith/overcoming one's desires and endlessly 
: reincarnating/going to heaven/becoming one with the universe
: et al.

That's interesting, I find too much contradiction in the idea
of the Christian God all by itself.  I don't see that much
difference between your rejection of Kent's idea and my
rejection of Christianity.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:08:38 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov22.235001.25025@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I certainly agree (with that latter sentence -- the first is
> debatable, but no matter).  Mr. Sandvik's claim that he is morally
> sound is not unreasonable, though rather bold, and the burden of proof
> is in this instance best borne by the skeptic.  For precisely this
> reason my first words were a refutation by counter-example,

> Mr. Sandvik chose the latter (and also wrote many unrelated things,
> such as the unkind words "bitchy dog"), which was unfortunate, as his
> errors in logic (e.g. calling ~p -> q the inverse) and refusal to
> acknowledge are a matter of public record.

Could we please speak about issues, and avoid personal attacks. I agree
that I did a mistake calling you a bitchy dog (I thought about
dogs that continue biting you even if you tell 'em to stop :-)).

OK, you are not a bitchy dog, are you happy now? Could we talk
about something more constructive, thx?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:35:25 GMT

cj@sgi.com writes:
] lefty@apple.com writes:
] |frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) wrote:
] ||Does a cat have a soul?
] |Joshu says "Mew".
] 10 points out of a possible 10 for Lefty.

Muffin says "Maaaah" - but I think it means 
he wants the remains of my cereal...

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:24:34 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov15.234317.8954@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <11515@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>There are many lesser candidates on this earth who
>>>for a much smaller prize (e.g., for his country or belief) would volunteer
>>>for death by crucifixion, firing squad, hanging (you simply name it)
>>>with all smiles, no complaints.
>>Oh boy.  Country or belief?  Why, I would volunteer for temporary
>>death (that is, such that I am alive again after two days) for a few
>>hundred pounds (assuming that my time does have a value), never mind
>>eternal life, Godhood and the like.
>Couple hundred pounds...hmm....Well, yeah, for just the temporary
>death part, sure. If you want the being nailed to a tree part thrown
>into the bargain, I think you'd have to go a bit higher,

Oh, yes.  I played it low because the previous poster, whose name you
deleted, mentioned some less unpleasant forms of dying (firing squad,
hanging).  Of course, not everyone cares the same for physical pain.
There are supposed to be quite a few people in India driving nails
into themselves for all kinds of reasons.

>but I'd say that 10 K + medical expenses would probably do it.

You're not supposed to need medical expenses -- Jesus didn't.  (Part
of the deal is that you'll be all right in two days, whatever.)  But
then again, remember that he was a strong kind of fellow, physically
well trained (carpentry is hard work), who thought nothing of not
eating anything for forty days, to name but one thing.  I'm not sure I
can perform that to begin with (though it is certainly doable), so
I'll really have to be paid well to tackle the cross trick.

Now, if whoever arranges your resurrection can also arrange that you
don't feel (much) pain on the cross (and he certainly can do that),
it is a different story.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov13.014358.14927@microsoft.com> 
	<WIGGINS.92Nov21174510@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 21:11:54 UTC

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov21174510@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> 
wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>     BTW, you can always catch someone in the exact wording of what he
>says over time and find contradictions.  But, really the person can be quite
>consistent as to his meaning.  True understanding is derived from the
>semantics, not the exact words used.  "I ain't got none" does not mean
>"I do have some."  Language is "slippery" and does not follow logical
>or mathematical precision.

This is an important concept to remember, particularly if one seeks to
avoid dogmaticism. *ALL* language, written and oral, is "slippery". And
the transcendent is transcendent of *ALL*, which certainly includes
language.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:22:37 GMT

In article <nyikos.722049541@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>All of this is getting a little far afield. Someone (I can't remember
>>specficly who. It's late and I _am_ tired) claimd that the argument
>>for prexistence, that God knew everybody before that they were
>>created souly by God (ex. nihlo) is a part of "orthodox" Christianity.

>Not necessarily.  There seem to be at least three views:

>1.  God does not perceive time as we do.  All times are equally present
>to him.  [William James calls this the "block-universe" view.]

>2.  God creates individuals and does NOT know ahead of time all that
>they will do. [William James endorses this view.]  Orthodox Christianity
>generally frowns on this view since God's "omniscience" is usually taken
>as a given, but "omniscience" could, IMHO, be interpreted to mean knowing
>all that IS happening or has happened.

>3.  The one you give.

>>If God knew you before your creation, to the extent that He knew
>>every thing about you, and then created the man to match his
>>foreknowledge, then the created enitity is entirely metaphiscally
>>dependent on God. Everything that the man can do, has been predetermined
>>by God. This type of Omnicient and subsequent creation effectivly
>>denies Free Will.

>I agree with the above analysis, although possibility 1. above cleverly
>gets around it.

What I want to ask is how you think puting God outside of time, so to speak, 
reconciles his omniscience with human freedom.  According to (1), then each 
different time will be immediately "present" God.  According to (3), God is 
carried along by time, but nevertheless knows all future events.  Aside from 
the fact that placing a concious entity outside of time seems incoherent to 
me, how is (1) sufficiently different in the relevant respects from (3) to 
entail that (a) God can know all of my future actions, and (b) I am free to 
perform or not to perform anything which is within my power.

Neil.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Anti-Mormons and the Tanners' Methodology
Keywords: Tanner, BoA, Quinn
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:38:42 GMT


Well, now this is fascinating.  Willard blows smoke again.  Considering
that we are under a red burn indicator, (it is unlawful to burn in
your wood stoves unless it is your only source of heat), Willard is
risking criminal prossecution.  *cough, cough*  At any rate, Willard
has done some picking and choosing of his material to misrepresent
BOTH sides of the argument.  I find it interesting that the anti-Christians
strive to focus more on who got what from where, rather than the
information itself.  Oh well, this is a cross we all must bear.

It still remains that it is up to each individual to examine the evidence
from its source, not just what Willard chooses to cite.  Again, I
exhort you (parakaleio) to look at what the Tanner's say, and examine
their arguments for yourselves.  Look at what Gee says, and what
Larson says, on the basis of the arguments themselves, and not on the
basis of who did what first, etc.  Willard, with his futile posts would
attempt to discourage you from studying the REAL information for yourselves,
but do it anyway.  The last thing he or others with his agenda would
want you to do is study and learn the REAL facts.  What he, and others
will not admit, is that the evidence is in, and the BoA is dead.  Some
Mormon scholars have agreed with the rest of the world that Joseph
Smith created the BoA from his own imagination.  Let go of the lies,
and accept the facts for what they are.  Don't be blinded by the smoke.

It is interesting to note, that Willard resurects "Dr. Clandestine"
once again.  Why is this?  Can he really think we don't have the
attention span necessary to remember the earlier debate on "Dr. Clandestine"?
Willard continues to attribute (and rightly so) that Quinn is
the "Dr. Clandestine," but it has been shown long ago in this newsgroup
that even the "author" has not openly acknowledged this pamphlet (why?),
and it has more misrepresentations and more holes than a fine aged
swiss cheese.  But, don't take my word for it.  Don't take Willard's
word for it.  Examine it all for yourselves.  There is only one
conclusion you can come to if you are honest with yourself.


-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:52:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <ksand-151192201825@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>Sigh. You are just now dealing with a morally sound man that does not
>exactly belong to any of the current religious orders. And I'm not
>killing people on the streets. If you still want to map morality
>to religion, you should please explain why the Christian church
>burned witches in my home town 400 years ago, and why it seems 
>Christian missionaries have a keen following to spread out Western
>diseases all around the world, killing innocent victims, including
>babies.

Sigh.  You are just now dealing with someone who has been a full-time
Christian missionary who hardly killed innocent victims...

Incidentally, speaking of killing innocent victims, I recall 
a Muslim student (from Bangladesh?  I forget) who lost his life in a 
Brussels hospital September of last year (1991).  The Belgians would not
treat his inflamed appendix for the several days of his pain and 
suffering.  why not?  because he was not Belgian and because he was of
low priority to their doctors.   The Belgians are predominently non-
religious humanists (~96% from Brussels survey in Fall of 1991).  I say
I was helpless because instead of killing people like you suggest missionaries
like me do as a priority, I was interested in saving this fellow.  [Had I been
a doctor, I might actually have been capable.]  Instead of killing 
people, I was busy comforting this fellow's wife and baby daughter before 
and after this guy`s death.  (Should I have killed the baby? NOT.)
Interestingly enough, I prayed with them--they 
to Allah, me to you-know-who.  They were outcast and ignored by the world
around them.  In the eyes of the student's wife and daughter who was 
doing the killing?  the missionary?  or the godless society around them
that otherwise had the capability to save this man's life?  BTW, was I beating
them with Christ?  not really, or was I?  They cried for help.
I remained at their side, sharing their grief, listening to their woes,
dealing with their confusion, and helping them to their feet.  That's what 
Christ does for me.

Terence
From: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: My Views
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:24:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Hi Netters -

My posting will probably cause a ruckus, but I feel the need to speak my mind.
Right off, I'll state that I am an athiest.  In addition, I'm a scientist.
Non-atheists, or believers, continually attempt to convince the non-believers
of their views, but when un non-believers try to do the same, we are looked
down upon.  Something is not right here.  Let me speak.

I totally understand your need to believe, and you have every right to
do so.  It is just that with my training, and observations over the years,
I cannot accept the existance of God.  It is a great concept, but it has no
base in the real world.  There is no _proof_, and that is the key fact.
In my younger days, I attended church and Sunday school till about the age
of seven when my family stopped attending for reasons that are not important
for this discussion.  Since then, I haven't regularly attended church.
Church is a topic for another discussion alltogether...

Since then, I've studied both sides, and came to my own decisions.  As a
scientist, I strive to understand the mysteries and unravel them so the
truth is evident.  To find the truth, one needs concrete, undeniable
proof of a fact.  In science, one cannot just state, "I have faith that this
fact is the truth...therefore so be it".  That is my stumbling block from
which my non-belief arises.  Nobody can demostrate to me that there is solid
proof for God's existance, creationism, etc.  Nothing.

There is proof for evolution.  Therefore, I have no choice.  One side can
provide proof, and the other cannot.  I'm sure this discussion has been
beaten to death on this newsgroup, and if so, I apologize.  I just felt the
need to state my views.  If anyone wants to expand on this disscussion,
I'm here.  If you have proof, please share it with me.

- Alan

-- 
 ______________/ Alan S. Olson  Swanson Environmental, Inc. \_________________
/     e-mail to alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  OR  alan@alchemy.chem.uwm.edu      \
|          Want some good music?  Check out Milwaukee's own BoDeans           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:16:43 GMT

In article <30462@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>|> In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>|> >God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
>|> >as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.
>|> 
>|> What's the difference between these two?
>Let's say that your house was on fire. I could come up, bang on the door
>and with great concern for your well being, say, "Hey! Your house is burning
>get out of there quick."
>Or I could stand out on the street and yell, "Nyahh, nyahh your house
>is burning, I hope you burn up with it because I don't care a fig for you."
 
Ah, but to be a more accurate analogy, then we would have to say that
you are the one who set the house on fire in the first place.

SD
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21543 alt.atheism:21663
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:44:39 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.

I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?

But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
the original poster - through salvation.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21406 alt.sex:36631