HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: This pi=3 business
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:40:10 GMT


1 Kings 7:23 gives the dimensions of a circular shaped object --
   Ten cubits from rim to rim = diameter.
   Thirty cubits measuring around it = circumference.
   Circ/Diam = pi = 30/10 =3 
   This is supposedly an error because pi=3.14159...

Ever heard of rounding off ?
Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One
Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One

Divide two numbers of one significant digit, and how many significant
digits can you keep in the answer?

"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.

Please show the intellectual honesty to remove this one from the lists
of biblical contradictions/errors.


Dave Weaver

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:20:11 GMT

A 'coffee-table' book a coworker lent me (at work) mentions a cave
in Europe stacked with 30,000 cave bear skulls.  It's hardly authorative,
but rather suggestive.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:05:59 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <2510@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>  
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> In article <92243.125027SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
> >
> >As Western nations dawdled about using force to stop Serbia's
> >"ethnic cleansing" campaign, Iran has asked the Organization of
> >the Islamic Conference to hold an emergency meeting to study
> >military options to defend Bosnian Muslims.  Turkey, a predominantly
> >Muslim country, is prepared to send around a 1,000 men to Bosnia
> >as part of a U.N. military force.
> 
> Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Are the Islamic
> fundamentalists who run the government of Iran prepared to stop abusing  
the
> "infidel" minorities, like Christians and Bahais, who live in their
> country?  Are they prepared to institute religious tolerance?  Are they
> prepared, for instance, to give portions of their own country to form a
> Bahai homeland?
> 
> -- 
> Tom Albrecht

     But it's still true that the kettle is black, Tom. The fact that the  
nominal Muslim government of Iran treats non-Muslims very badly does not  
change the fact that a lot of nominal Christian Serbs in Bosnia are  
killing many, many Muslim Slavs and Christian Croatians. We Christians  
should be working to convince the people in Bosnia to come to their  
senses, stop destroying themselves, and settle their differences  
peacefully. The actions of the Iranian government towards non-Muslims  
cannot be used as an excuse to justify, condone, or be indifferent to the  
killing in Bosnia.

Yours in Christ,

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me." -- the Jesus Prayer
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Date: 24 Aug 92 23:25:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714449558@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   that flood thing:
> 	- archaelogical evidence indicates that Noah's Ark probably exists
> 	- many of the earth's previously unexplainable features can be
> 		explained by a cataclysimic flood
> 	- the seemingly impossible events of a worldwide flood
> 		are really quite plausible if examined closely

a) We have found Noah's ark many times. But it seems that we 
still lack any solid evidence. Heck, Weekly World News reports
Noah's ark to be found once a month.
b) Ah, the cataclysmic flood theory once again. Oh gee, 
I guess the flood theory explains why the dinosaurs disappeared
as well. Noah and God didn't like them so they weren't accepted
on the boat.
c) Anything is plausible when using filters in front of the brain.

>   Center for Scientific Creation
>   5612 N. 20th Place
>   Phoenix, AZ
>   85016

Thx for the hint, I'm collecting bizarre pseudo-science books. Will
get it.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 19:05:12 GMT

In article <la7d7jINN77m@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Graham Matthews) writes:
>
> Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
> truth of something without justification. To claim that you can include
> scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.
>
>Well, it's too bad you use such a limited definition of
>faith.  I believe others have gotten more mileage out of a 
>wider definition.

Uh, Dan.  Like Graham said, you need to discard all the rhetoric.  Sure
it's possible to add a lot words around Graham's definition in order
to obfuscate the fact that religious faith is just unfounded belief in
something.  Theologians excell at these sort of word games.  But word games
don't help anybody to understand anything.  Their purpose is quite the
opposite.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: organized?, yeah right!
	<1992Aug24.050634.8585@oclc.org> 
	<Aug.25.04.18.13.1992.20188@athos.rutgers.edu> 
	<2476@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:51:26 GMT

In article <2476@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> 
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>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.

You are insulting the NT here. Are you trying to tell me that the only way one
can find value in the NT is if a cheap sales gimick like it is the word of God
is used to sell it? That seems like a very shakey foundation, one that can't
stand to something like Luke 14:26. True dogma must stand on its merits. Clever
fishers of men can sell anything with the grift that it is the direct word of
God. Are your beliefs based only on that assumption? Why do you have a brain?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:08:18 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1992Aug25.034455.24650@en.ecn.purdue.edu>  
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> You are probably right [about not checking out Islam].  I have tried to  
read the Qur'an a few times but it
> seemed to always speak in riddles and never say anything  
matter-of-factly.  I
> talked with someone about this and they told me that I needed to read it  
as
> it was written (original language) to grasp the "poetic aspect" or have
> someone interpret for me.  Maybe I was reading the wrong stuff.  I would
> never have someone start reading the Bible in the OT... What would you
> suggest I read and what is a good version (?).
>
     I would recommend the Dawood translation as a start (published in  
paperback by Penguin), especially if your income is modest, as most  
students' is. You should read the Koran first, and avoid the biographies  
and commentaries for now. That way you can better come to your own  
conclusions about it, without undue influence from either Christians or  
Muslims. Ignore those who claim that "only those who truly understand the  
Arabic language, i.e. Arabs, are capable of properly understanding and  
interpreting the Koran." That's like saying that because the Gospel was  
originally written in Greek, only Greeks are capable of properly  
understanding and interpreting the Gospel. Any good, literal, English  
translation of the Koran will suffice.

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me." -- the Jesus Prayer   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15545 alt.atheism:16461
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:31:12 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <sbuckley.715470175@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>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

For those of you who are not attuned to numerology, this sort of
argument has a unique property:  the ratio of the circumference
to the diameter is equal to approximately 3.14159...

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:36:42 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>I have a hard time relating to Christians who have non-Biblical
>stances on anything, so forgive me if I am a bit stubborn on this
>point.  I am in slavery to God, but that is how it should be, and I
>couldn't be happier about it, so what's the big deal?

Well, some of us, me included, find the very concept of a supreme
being who request, nay, DEMANDS, ultimate servitude from his subjects
offensive in the extreme.  Why does your god require this of you?

I guess it's because I place more value in freedom than I do in
contentment.

By the way, are you a determinist, too?

-- 
"If our section was 'Romper Room', our TA would have been great.  I'm just
 surprised she didn't threaten to take recess away from us."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
Organization: transcendency of transcendent transcendence
	<fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig> 
	<BtLv2F.Cp7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714863644@spssig> 
	<BtM79E.FEq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714924351@spssig>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:45:44 GMT

In article <adams.714924351@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Sure. And my God fits that.  He is trancendent of time...

Ah, but is He transcendent also of sex? Can He assume both male and female
forms? Is He neutral, as a true transcendent would be?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:55:12 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <1992Aug26.192545.9701@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

                                     Never once did God MAKE evil.  never
 once was God responsible for evil's origins.  If indeed God can be blames

If god made everything, and if evil is a part of everything, then
god created evil.

Once again, it seems you have failed to address the
rebuttal, for according to your theology:

     god created everything
     god knows everything past, present, and future
     god created a satan he knew would "turn evil"
     thus, god created evil.

IMO, you have yet to show any holes in this logic.

Dan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist/Christian (orig. poster speaks)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:14:39 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Nice post, Mr. Kendig. You are not alone. I have been willing and able to
>become a Christian for several years now, but I have never had the slightest
>indication that it might actually be true. I find your comment that 
>Christianity is quite solidly worked-out to be true in my experience. 
>But, as a friend of mine put it: "Nice house they've got there - too bad there
>isn't any door!" 

>Before anyone says, "You haven't tried!" Let me add that I have accepted
>Jesus into my heart many times, in hopes that SOMETHING would change, even
>a tiny spark of a faith, a micro-iota of a sense that something was even
>SLIGHTLY different. Not looking for letters of fire in the sky, not looking
>for a warm feeling. Anything. A sense of hope. Anything. I've abandoned my
>family, friends and worldly posessesions before - how gladly would I not do
>it for a being as great as the Christians keep going on about!

  funny about this.  same thing happened to me.  a couple months after
deciding to turn to jesus, i climbed a mountain and spent an isolated weekend
looking for some sign/indication that it was actually happening.  i came
back without any indication.  when telling a christian friend of mine, she
just laughed at me.  she asked what i was expecting to see, and i 
basically responded that i was looking for a two-by-four over the head,
eureka! experience on the level of a burning bush.  then i began to laugh.
sometimes we're just looking for confirmation in ways that god isn't
offering confirmation.  since that mountain experience, i've found the
truth of it all, mainly in the healing in my soul from a darkened depressed
place to a healthy, god-filled place.  after stopping trying to get god
to prove himself to me, and i could only do this when i became exhausted in
trying, i just said "o.k., it's true, i'll believe tho i've seen no 
evidence in my life, show me in YOUR ways."  and then everything changed.
really, it did.  and i don't think abandoning family, friends
and possessions will show you jesus.  but you need to have faith based on
no evidence for the evidence to come into your heart--a contention that
merits the highest ridicule in this newsgroup, i know, but it's still
true.

---                          
     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,alt.atheism
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:17:58 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Btppt5.Bt3@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>In talk.religion.misc rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu writes:
>
>>The theme of Christianity is Jesus the Christ - his fortelling, life, 
>>works, Deity, death for our sin payment, bodily resurrection, assention, 
>>and future return.  As the Apostle Paul put it in I Cor 15, for without 
>>Christ and his resurection we (Christians) are of all men most miserable.
>
>Why?  Without "Christ" and his "resurrection", you wouldn't exist, ergo you
>wouldn't be any more or less miserable than anyone else.

I don't understand this response.  The postings appeared to be 
asking for the purpose/theme of Christianity.   So for the sake of
the argument, it can be assumed that Christianity is in existance
and some people adhere to its teachings, whatever they are.  However, 
if one adheres to it, as if one is preaching something new and yet one 
doesn't have Christ's resurrection then one's life/preaching is in vain.
Read I Cor 15, for more detail.

Again, as you have said, as I said, without Christ and His resurrection
we would not have Christianity.  I'm not sure that we would not exist,
but I'm not sure to what you are exactly referring.  On the topic of
being more miserable, if we preach Christ and his resurrection and
this is not true, then we are condemned for what we preach is not true.
However, we are persuaded that it is true.

>>There is a lot of side issues, but the above is the essence.  We are
>>encouraged to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.  We
>>are predestined to be conformed into the likeness of Jesus the Christ.
>>Through Jesus we have been given everything we need for life and godliness.
>
>Have a nice conforming, predetermined life, then.  The government will be very
>happy with you, citizen.

I think you've misunderstood or decided to misunderstand for the sake of it.

There is a difference between predestined and predetermined - although
maybe slight in some people's eyes.  It seems there is also a difference 
between being conformed to the likeness of Christ and the 'nice conforming' 
life, to which you seem to be referring.

God has planned for us who believe to become like His Son.  It is not 
something forced on us, for you can look around and see plenty of 
people who claim the name of Christ and do not conform to his likeness.
This conforming is not necessarily to the liking of the government - there
are a few places in the Bible where you find the will of God is contrary
to the will of the government.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15188 alt.atheism:16156
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:26:32 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>When I say faith, I mean blind faith.
(Graham Matthews) writes:
>As far as I can see the "blind" here is redundant. If what you do
>is not "blind" then it is not faith!
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>me writes:
>Faith is believing something as possibly true, but always questioning its
>validity and not following it blindly. 

I would not call this "faith". You seem to be endowing faith with an
air of scepticism - as far as I can see this is a contradiction in
terms.

(Paul Harvey) writes:
>Blind Faith is never questioning. I 
>have faith that my car will start and run tonight, but I know better than
>to depend on that blindly. I have faith that I know Jah, but I also know 
>that I do not know all. The best have all been humbled, and I am not as 
>enlightened as the best. I know better than to take the Lord in vain. Read
>about the temptation of Jesus by the Devil to learn why Jesus had faith 
>in God, but NOT blind faith. Blind faith is a tool of the Christian Devil.
>The creator gave you a brain for a purpose, use it! And yet they have 
>eyes and they do not see! Jah! Ras TafarI!

Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
truth of something without justification. To claim that you can include
scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Pi - please read !
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:56:02 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	The reason why pi != 3.14 in the Bible is that the pi wasn't actually  
>	invited yet and the circumference was measured with a rope: [...]

This is incorrect.  

While it's (trivally) true that the concept of "PI", per se, hadn't been
invented yet, the notion of the ratio the circumference of a circle to its
diameter was certainly well understood.

Moreover, the fact that PI was not equal to 3 was well understood long
before the Book of Kings was written: e.g. by the beginning of the second
millennium BCE the Babylonians were using the value 3-1/8 and the Egyptians
were using 4*[(8/9)^2].

The fact that PI was not 3 was even understood in the Palestine at the time
when Kings was being written written.  Why the writers of that book chose
not to use use the more accurate value is anyone's guess.  (My own opinion
is that they simply weren't very interested; that this level of simple
"fact" wasn't their concern.)

An interesting footnote here is that even 10 centuries later --i.e. around
500 CE-- the creators of the Talmud were still writing sentences like:
"that which in circumference is three hands broad is one hand broad."

(For further details and references for the above, see Petr Beckman's _A
History of PI_.)

NICHAEL                                                               __
nichael@bbn.com  --                             Be as Passers-by.  -- IS
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:37:16 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>
>>Please, note, you and I are products of our our brain that collects
>>input every second. To boldly state that one's personal view is
>>the one and only right one is as impossible as any other statement
>>done by a human being.
>
>  i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
>brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
>we do on faith alone.  and i don't say my view is right because it

Perhaps something like this cannot be prooven, but when there is no evidence
for your assertion, by occam's razor, we assume that it does not exist.
Blindly saying that because we cannot proove one thing absolutely means that
all theories are equally valid is foolish and a common ploy of christians
arguing with atheists. This error in logic was destroyed in the 12th century by
William of occam...

>comes from me or is somehow a subset of me, but rather *because* it 
>is eternal, separate and objective.
>
-Scott


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rmg53668@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ryan M. Grant)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:22:50 GMT

Exceedingly long analogy on insurance salesman deleted....

Better analogy follows...

Man rings bell, sticks foot in door, tells you Not To Pay The Mortgage Bills.
Says someone else will, and could you maybe spare a bowl of soup (with your
new found fortune and all).

Unlike the insurance man's son, Jesus never gave out written contracts.  He
left no proof that anything He said will come true.  You never actually Get
anything for going Christian, or for going religous in general.  You can 
feel good, but I do already.  If you don't pay the bill, someone Will take
your house.  Now Who would believe a silly man telling you not to?

The fact that millions of opressed peasants believed shows what a good tool
this Lie can be, for those who want to believe they have something (like a 
paid up house) but do not.

	Bit sidetracked, gut oh well.
	- Ryan Grant