HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Certainty and Loss of Belief (was Re: Faith vs. Reason)
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:53:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Recently, when peeking in again on this newsgroup, I saw two commonly-made
assertions about Christianity which I find hard to reconcile.  It's not
my intent here to pick on the poster specifically; I quote these articles
mainly because they make for a fairly convenient juxtaposition:

In article <1992Aug30.082312.26247@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, someone writes:
[in response to a question asking how faith leads to certainty]

>Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
>others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
>because I want it to be.

A few articles later, the same person writes:

>    What I am going to say will sound strange, but it is true.  There is no
> such thing as an ex-Christian.  If you claim to be one, then I hold that you
> never were a Christian to start with.

Over the years, I've seen a number of people here who have posted that
they were once quite devout Christians, actively cultivating a
'personal relationship with God' and Christ, but have since lost their
faith.  While I can't make any reliable judgment about the true worth
of their spiritual life during their time as theists, I have no reason
to doubt their sincerity in describing what they *thought* about it at
various points in their lives.

In other words, they seemed to have just as much reason as any
Christian net-poster to believe themselves a devoted Christian.  As I read
the quote which opened this article, they therefore should have had '100%
assurance' about God and their faith, rather than just be 'hoping for
the best'.  Yet according to the second quote, they weren't Christians
at all, even though they were quite sure they were.  So instead of having
'100% assurance', they were fundamentally deluded in their spiritual
perceptions at the time.  (Moreover, some of the people who post
now believing strongly in Christianity could be similarly deluded, and
just not know it yet.)

I don't see a way to consistently hold both of these assertions about
Christians at the same time.  Have I completely misread one of the
quoted statements above, or does at least one of them have to go?

John Ockerbloom
-- 
==========================================================================
ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu                      ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom
ocker@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded)      4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:23:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <Aug.25.04.18.13.1992.20188@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>I don't understand.  Why can the deity of Christ only be established
>using an inerrant source of information?  My evaluation is that the NT
>gives us a substantially accurate view of what Jesus taught, and of
>the critical events of his life: his death and resurrection.  I don't
>see what inerrancy would add to that.  ...

What about the folks who are part of the so-called Jesus Project, who have
been telling us that much (most?) of the gospels are not the words of
Jesus, and therefore not historically accurate?

It seems to me that as soon as you admit error, it becomes very difficult,
2000 years removed from the actual events, to decide which statements about
Christ and His ministry are true and which are not.  If you admit to error
in the NT, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the supernatural
events, i.e., the resurrection.  If you admit to error in the NT, the an
objective basis for faith disappears, and true faith soon disappears as
well.  The gospel narratives becomes just so much whimsy, tossed about
by the lastest pontifications from higher critical blowhards and others
in the theological establishment.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15421 alt.atheism:16377
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:12:17 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Aug25.045804.28087@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
> 
> It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
> to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
> the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
> ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
> 
> 1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>    during, or after the time Jesus died?
> 
> 2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>    during, or after the time Jesus died?
> 
> If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
> then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
> being forgiven and not the others?

"No" and "no."  Jesus, the eternal sacrifice of God who was slain from the
foundation of the world, died to pay for the sins of His people (cf.
Matthew 1:21).  He is the "good shepherd" who lays down His life for His
sheep (John 10:11,14).  The blood of the Passover lamb of the old covenant
was only shed for the people of God (or those who would eventually become
the people of God).  The sacrifice of Yom Kippur under the old covenant
only atoned for the sins of those "within the camp."  

Saying that Jesus died for the sins of the world is not the same as saying
that He died to atone for the sins of every last man, woman, and child that
ever lived.

The blood of the Lamb of God was only shed for those who willing become
identified with the new covenant.  And this willingness only comes about
when a person has his/her "heart of stone turned into a heart of flesh"
by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:55:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714968551@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> 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.

Omnipotence implies that this God is able to create a situation where
free will and happiness works hand-in-hand. He wasn't able to do this,
and he also regretted this by trying to kill the whole human population
with the Flood (also killing all the poor animals, why, I don't know).

 > >> >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.

Well, I *want* to see God, frankly speaking. I'm not an atheist. I'm
still member of the Lutheran church. However, the Christian God is
absent from my life. I really want him to pop up so it would explain
why millions of people believe in this hoopla. So far I have not seen
anything. Thus your proposal is not valid.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15114 alt.atheism:16084
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:10:33 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <sbuckley.714970217@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>  wow, it seems in this you have described just how it is.  god forgives
>us regardless of whether we accept it or even acknowledge the necessity
>of god's forgiveness.  god says, "your are forgiven, [everyone] - 
>even if you hate me, i will not hold anything against you."  
>
>  but we still have the freedom to ignore that forgiveness and all it
>entails.  just like joe can choose to ignore your forgiveness.

Really?  Every Christian I've ever talked to said that one had to accept the
"gift" before dying--that the only unforgivable sin was to *not* accept the gift.
They could have been wrong.  I'd like to see chapter & verse...

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.072640.306@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>> 
>> This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>> to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce.  
>
>i.e.  Rationalism.
>
>> After the endless
>> repetition that I mentioned above, people begin to believe whatever
>> it was that was repeated.  
>
>Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...

I'm glad you mentioned evolution Jim, because this is a perfect example
of how destructive this backwards thinking really is.  After you and
your type succeed in destroying science and education in North America,
how do you propose to compete with the rest of the world?  I mean, while
you're off looking for your bloody ark, there will be others who continue
to do science, and who will therefore become more technically advanced than
you.  What means, other than dropping bombs on them, will you be able
to use to compete?  Really Jim, using your brain in forward gear would
be much better for all concerned, yourself and your children included.

>> This backwards mode
>> of "thinking" pollutes all our lives, and will probably prove fatal to
>> our species.  
>
>i.e.  the great tribulation.

I suppose so Jim.  Ever heard of self fulfilling prophecies?

>> It's unfortunate, because I think that we do have reasonably
>> sound hardware, it's just that we never learned how to employ it properly.
>
>i.e.  using it to honor God.

Umm, Jim.  Superstition has been around for a long time, and I honestly
can't think of a single instance where it has made the world a better place.
Perhaps we ought to try something different?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:05:35 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

It's just more of what I've said before, people scaring others into their way
of life, using stories of a mythical "God" to drive them into submission...
...it's not done maliciously, it's done after the fact to explain it away,
lifting the burden from the shoulders of those in whom the fault does lie, and
them becoming part of the culture so that it becomes impossible to fault any
member of it, for that is what they believe.  Or so it seems.  Really, every
human is responsible for his or her beliefs whether he or she likes it or not,
and "I was just following [divine] orders" has never been a valid excuse,
whether media hype "vindicated" LtC. Oliver North or not.

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:05:48 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Hold on now.  I distinctly remember Chris Colby posting here.  He is not only
>an "evolutionist", but also a biologist.  Probably one of the most knowledgable
>I have ever met.

	Perhaps then I know two. But, I disagree with you - I don't think he is 
	knowledgeable.

>  I am glad you are so good at being humble.

	I *am* humble, but I'm only angry when people can't have more experien-
	ce. My biology is studying plants in some leaking tent in a Siberian 
	tundra and I find it is the only way.                                 

	                  
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Various Religions
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:20:49 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>-*----
>Note followups.

>-*----
>In article <1992Aug29.194930.10566@access.digex.com> minx@access.digex.com (minx) writes:
>> ... I was just saying that atheism is a religion that calls the 
>> bible fiction.

>Which is still a pretty silly thing to say.  

>Except for the brain-dead fundamentalists, Christians recognize
>that parts of the Bible are fiction.  Many Christians, for
>example, are quite happy to take the Garden of Eden story as a
>piece of fiction that contains some religious truths, rather than
>as a literal history.  Conversely, I have never met an atheist
>who thought that the *entire* Bible is a work of fiction. 

Which is why there exist agnostics, like myself, who argue against or for either
side of the issue, but certainly against organized belief in things that there
is no real evidence for, especially when said organizations are hypocritical and
inconsistent.

>So solely on the grounds of thinking that the Bible contains
>fiction, Christians are not distinguished from those of other
>religions, nor from atheists.

>Russell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:37:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714968420@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   no, check out talk.religion.newage and ask shirley maclaine.  it's a big
> and growing philosophy that enlightenment means realizing how each of us
> is god.  *that's* what's presumptuous.

Sigh, Shirley MacLaine does not equal all the New Age or ancient world
religions. True, many of the Eastern Culture religions push for
self-realization
and to become a God, but that's nothing new under the sun. Mormons and 
Scientologists have the same goal. Sometimes I even wonder if not 
Christians are keen to be the 'chosen people' that will end up in heaven.
It also implies self-realization, whether you want it or not.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<fRU7DeG@quack.sac.ca.us> <sbuckley.715474187@sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:42:16 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:
Hit me hard with the fruit. I am ready to see and I am ready to take
responsibility for the knowledge that I gain. Ain't no shame in my game,
because I have eaten the sacred fruit and I will continue to as long as
I am a HUMAN BEING. This is how the creator created me, and I will not
let her down. Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like
me. Good .... DAY!

Stephen Buckley writes:
just curious paul.  what do you think happens when you die?

---
H'mm, I can tell this is a big question for you. You have to take a lot of
things into account, like for example the meaning of life and death. Can
there be life without death? Is death a penalty or is it just death, a
prerequisite for life? Then there is that Tree of Life or Eternal Life that
just appears in Genesis. If you get access to that tree, will you eat? What
if your God forbids or requires that you eat? When the time comes to leave,
will you go eagerly? What do you think happens when you live? When you die
you of course transcend human life. What is the transcendent like compared
to the field of opposites of human life?
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:28:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center

> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> >>> Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
> >>> others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
> >>> because I want it to be.
[...]
> > Of course to hold to this I have to think that my certainty in
> > Christ is just that while X persons faith in Y (non-Christ) is only hope.


John, I'm afraid I have to agree with Simon.  The things you are saying
are non-sensical.  Its like trying to prove the sky is plad, and using
"the sky is plad" as a base for your proof.   

It really shocks me that a college student can say this stuff with
a straight face.   I'm not "upset", just shocked and dismayed.

Reality strikes again...

Walter
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <1992Aug31.082509.5855@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	Nevertheless it is false. In this newsgroup there has been  three 
> 	non-evolutionist biologist. Also, none of the evolutionists have been 
> 	proved to be biologist. 

  Hold on now.  I distinctly remember Chris Colby posting here.  He is not only
an "evolutionist", but also a biologist.  Probably one of the most knowledgable
I have ever met.

  As a second point: people who post to t.r.m is not a good cross section
sampling of the general population.  You are the closest thing to a Creationist
biologist I have ever met, and I have met plenty of both.

> 	So, if only those that know about things would talk, there would be no 
> 	confusion at all. And I am far more biologist than those evolutionists,
> 	no matter where I am majoring at. 

  I am glad you are so good at being humble.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15374 alt.atheism:16328
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:57:23 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Sep1.170942.14961@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>The term "Jesus Freak" used to be applied to a subset of
>christians who exhibited most or all of the following traits:
>usually young, very energetic in their evangelism, incredibly
>simple minded, totally convinced of their own rightness,
>usually not involved in "mainstream" churches.

Stretching a bit farther back in etymology:

The term "freak" was a self-selected term referring to a certain kind of 
nonconforming individual in the United States in the mid 60's.  For a while,
it became popular for evangelists who followed living patterns typical of
freaks to refer to themselves as Jesus Freaks.  (Interestingly, the living
patterns of freaks are far closer to the Jesus legend than the big-haired,
greased-down, polyester-garbed evangelists of today.)

"Jesus Freak" rapidly became a derogatory term.  "Freak" was mostly forgotten
when various news media coined and promoted the term "hippie."

-EMP
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:42:55 GMT

Jake Rose writes:

>I can make up gods who are forgiving too, Stephen.  For example, Jumbo the
>Flying Frog, who hops from planet to planet, has forgiven you for your sin
>of disbelief in it.  There you are.  Counter that one.

  well jumbo the flying frog didn't die for anyone.  if you say he did
i cannot accept your authority because you aren't god.
---                          
     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: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.072640.306@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>[discussion of Brian Kendig's frank and honest post deleted.]

Interesting: do you consider posts by atheists who are less friendly
to Christianity insincere or dishonest?  Just an aside.

I have to admit, I line up somewhere between Brian and Doug: I don't
revile Christianity, or consider it some sort of mental defect, but I
don't entirely understand it, and do find things there to criticize.
Attacks of one sort or another don't really further discussion.
Sometimes a tit for tat response can be enlightening or satisfying,
but sometimes it falls flat on its face.

>> After the endless
>> repetition that I mentioned above, people begin to believe whatever
>> it was that was repeated.  
>
>Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...

See Bob Beauchaine's invitation to show the clearly superior
creationist alternative to evolutionist dogma.

>> After that, they use their brain backwards.
>> They start with whatever they've been indoctrinated with, and then
>> concoct reasons for believing it.  
>
>Atheism...Atheism...Atheism...Atheism...

Perhaps this could be used as a criticism of Stalinist Soviet schools
(I wouldn't really know), but it scarcely applies to any atheists
you're likely to communicate with here.  Most of us were raised as
Christians of one degree or another, and even for those who weren't,
this is scarcely a society that imparts atheism as a desirable belief
("this is one nation under God").

>> Often they go to absurd lengths
>> to justify their preconceived conclusions.  
>
>No evidence for God...There's no evidence for God...There's...

Although I never saw evidence for myself, I entered into this whole
religious debate thing under the assumption that believers did have
some evidence, though I hadn't yet seen it.  It is years of this
discussion that has led me to the stronger position that there is no
evidence for God.  Oddly, a great many of those on the other side seem
to agree with me.

>> Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
>
>It's AMAZING Doug, I didn't know that we
>thought so much alike...  ;)

I don't think so, somehow, and the attempt at parallel reasoning
didn't come off very successfully.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim B.


-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.