HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:27:52 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714968230@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>> 
>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
>> >How does this differ from human religious groups that control how
>> >god should be worshipped?
> 
>>   it doesn't.  it's the same stuff.  human beings have individual, personal,
>> internal relationships with god in jesus.  without that, social religious
>> influence is meaningless, which is why i at one time and many all the time
>> leave the church because they have no personal relationship with god
>> and the church is not enough to give someone god.

>Your assumption would imply that our world would not need huge religious
>sects based on the original teachings of Jesus, and that RC and similar
>huge churches are artifacts. You know, they killed people that didn't
>belong to a church (or the wrong one) 1500 years ago.

  please leave the red herrings out of this.  we're not talking about
church history.  we both know that well enough.  what i'm saying is that
knowing god is not dependent on a church or a social institution.  
this does not imply, tho that churches as institutions are meaningless.
they are still relevant for corporate worship, fellowship and admonition,
among other wonderful benefits.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:35:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

> In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> >May I suggest that there _may_ be an
> >evil force that _may_ be causing the chaos we have seen so far on
> >this group?  Be careful!

May I suggest that you are slightly paranoid?

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Organization: your mother is calling
	<fR68HZi@quack.sac.ca.us> <lackdbINNe1k@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<adams.715546026@spssig> <Bu0x06.9q0@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<laf2raINNh1k@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:25:48 GMT

In article <laf2raINNh1k@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>But also, once Eve had eaten of the fruit, and Adam had not yet
>eaten, Eve may have had Knowledge, but Adam did not yet, so the
>nudity bit wouldn't have affected him yet. In any event, if
>you were Adam, and Eve had just eaten from the fruit, what other
>choice would you have but to eat also? 

If I had the intelligence of Eve, I would have asked the same questions that
she asked the snake. We could have done some role reversal, I play Eve and
Eve gets to play the snake. Maybe that scene was redacted? Then again if I 
knew what was up, I may have just played along and eaten. How could I refuse 
such an offer, being only man? I'm sure Eve was quite the snake handler by
this time.

>The alternative would be to "be alone" forever?

Wow, that's a good one. Human being seeking human being of like flesh, it's
part of creation, isn't it? As the human being leaves the parents, the human
being clings to a spouse to be as one, of like flesh.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15516 alt.atheism:16441
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:47:38 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <sbuckley.715469619@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>  salvation comes in two parts.  jesus died for all of our sins, but we
>must accept that gift for the second part.  this acceptance must occur
>when we're still breathing and able to make decisions.

Yow!  You mean one loses the ability to make decisions when their immortal soul
leaves their mortal body?!  I've never heard that before, and I'm sure a few
Christians expecting the afterlife to be, er, heavenly will be rather
disappointed to find out that they'll lose their cognative abilities when they
die.

-- 
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
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:04:24 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>In article <l9q98gINNrmg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
>danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>>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.

>Is there a problem with this logic?

Only in that probably >90% of Christians will try mightily to deny it.
That's what Steve Gross is doing...and why Dan made this post.  I've been
trying to get Steve to see this for a couple of months.  

BTW, in  case you've missed it, I'm Christian and I not only 'admit' it I
brag about it! ;-)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:58:14 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: Young Jeff writes:
: 
: >I must say, I find your version of Christianity much more accommodating
: >than the fundamentalist flavor.  I have difficulty comprehending such
: >a stance though.  Although I am now an atheist, I was raised fundamentalist 
: >and to this day think that their position is more consistent than moderate 
: >Christianity's.  First, I will acknowledge that my understanding of
: >this brand may have been misrepresented during my Fundamentalist 
: >indoctrination, and I will welcome corrections.  Moderate Christianity
: >strikes me as a cafeteria plan religion.  Choose the parts you like and
: >disregard the rest.  For example, how can they read the creation stories
: >as myths while Jesus apparently accepted them as historical facts?  Was
: >Jesus mistaken?  How does this affect his divinity?
: 
:   this may bother you, but i am complete agreement with everything in
: the above paragraph.  

It doesn't bother me.  I expected we would agree.  But I would like
to make clear that just because I find fundamentalism more consistent 
doesn't mean I find it in the least bit reasonable.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:01:54 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Bu0KC0.Fxw@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>That one can't 'develop a
>faith that becomes certainty' in a falsehood?  Why not?  Evidence is
>quite clear that this happens all the time (mutual exclusion, after
>all).
>
>I won't even bother with your moral supremacy position, how your
>belief is obviously true while somebody else's is merely hope.

First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...

I don't recall any posts where a non-Christian relates a wholistic assurance
in their belief (i.e. through all aspects of human thought, including reason,
emotion, experience, gut feelings, etc, etc.).  None who are as blatantly
stubborn about their position. :-)  Could it be that they are not as sure?
They base their beliefs only on reason and intellectual feasability, whereas
the Christian will acknowledge that reason is an issue, but by far not the
sum total of religious experience.  There are some on the other end as well.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:10:27 GMT

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
: My faith and understanding is not bible dependant where I need to
: find my way through every word written and squeeze this into my life.
: I can be perfectly adjusted and content with the words and general
: theme as a guide in balance with my living experience in Him.
: On cafeteria religion, most people imo are forced to pick and choose
: parts of the bible, tradition, or both to form their comfort level
: in their respective camps, even if much of the choosing is deferred
: to the unconscious level for maximum comfort:-)

How do you expect me to argue with you if you are going to be so
damned reasonable? ;-)  Nonetheless, I tried scraped together a
couple comments.

: My Rock is become the living Rock the words point to. I know what I
: experienced, and can effectively argue for the Lord in that experience
: which is felt and observed in the walk of life, where in that mode, some
: of the words of the books(words in isolation of a passage)come alive
: for a given situation.

This occasionally happens when I read the Bible too.  In fact, 
It occasionally happens when I read many things.  Many times 
the other things produce better insights than the Bible on the
same topic.

: [Acknowledgement of misuse of the Bible in history deleted]
: are pointing out. And the living Rock keeps one just knowledgable
: enough to enjoy his presence, but not knowledgable enough for
: surity to facilitte using this newfound experience to Lord it over
: others. Thus a perfect harmony of paradox in balance:-) IMO.

This "perfect harmony" for you appears less than perfect for others
in history (As you acknowledge above).

This combination of imperfect revelation and proliferation of 
equally inspiring sources, leads me to believe that Christianity
lacks the divine inspiration that is claimed for it.

Other than this observation, I see little to argue about.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:34:12 GMT
	<adams.714663184@spssig>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>But, at the same time as they were expelled, God promised Eve that her
>'seed' would bring on a savior to redeem mankind.

Where does it say that?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15156 alt.atheism:16128
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:48:25 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <Btovtp.D0n@agora.rain.com> mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>The other major tenet of Christianity she [_sc._ a friend of his] has
>a grievance with is the guilt trip, "Jesus died for your sins."  "I
>didn't _ask_ him to die for me!"  she says.

What's the big deal?  He only remained dead for two days.  Well, I
also suppose he was somewhat uncomfortable sitting on the cross for
several hours.  Still, it doesn't sound like much.  Now, if he had
lived for a week on the cross, as those put to death sometimes did,
and had remained dead for ever, then we could talk.

>She really wants a religion which emphasizes taking responsibility for
>ones actions and not blaming your _choices_ on fate.

This sounds like Vedic Hinduism, except that there you are also
responsible for your actions in previous lives of yours, and may die
and be reborn several times before you are rewarded or punished for
what you're doing now.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15356 alt.atheism:16311
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:40:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <7#jnv4l.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <l9qs7kINNbvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
>>earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
>>the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is 
>>enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
>>American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
>>world population.

>	Are there really people stupid enough to pay attention to such
>tripe? Geez.

>	Food supply is not a constant.

>	Duh.

Are you really this stupid, or are you just deliberatly being an ass? 
I have provided some current numbers. In the rest of my article, which
you deleted, I made mention of the fact that our ability to produce
food is declining. I guess that would mean that it is not a constant.

Duh.

>						Kayembee

Eric
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:55:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep1.170200.11493@col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>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.
>
>Are you serious???  What in the world are you basing this on?  I have to
>say, John, this is *scary* stuff to be hearing from a Christian...
>
>> >3) You say "knowledge of Him must depend on faith".  Faith in what
>> >   things?  Just that there is a God, or faith in the inerrancy of
>> >   the Bible, that it is giving you the "right knowledge"?  
>> 
>> That is for you to decide!  What I think doesn't really matter for your
>> life...  
>
>Somehow I find it hard to believe you *really* believe that...otherwise
>you wouldn't be so hot to do what you're doing...You started this whole
>thread by saying there *were* absolutes for Christians, and now you're
>saying "that is for you to decide".  Forgive me if I am left totally
>confused as to what you are doing..

If one develops a faith that becomes certainty in anything then include that
in the absolutes...  I am trying to stress that that just doesn't happen for
falsehoods.  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.

Don't think too hard about it or bother getting into a huge argument because
I am busy w/Sean (!) and homework right now...  I know the above sounds weird
and I really should think things through more and give reasons with my
conclusions.  Sorry.

>Walter Smith
>smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:57:10 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: >Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
: >to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
: >that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
: >fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
: >than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
: >passing the buck on this?
: 
:   the standard answer is that for god to create us with authentic
: free will, we'd have to truly be able to choose good or evil.  otherwise
: it's like a parent saying to a child, now you have a choice to put
: your hand on the stove burner or not.  but if you touch the burner
: you will surely be burnt.  but then the parent does not have the stove
: turned on.  that's what it would be like if we had the will power to
: resist evil...it wouldn't be a viable choice.

It seems that you are saying that the Fall was inevitable.
What is the difference between punishing a puppy for eternity
for messing on the carpet and punishing humanity for eternity
for succumbing to something equally inevitable?  Is eternal
torment reasonable punishment for performing the inevitable?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
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 21:51:58 GMT

Kent Sandvik writes:

>Stephen Buckley wrote:

>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>> >I see, the GIFT that has a small footprint stating that one has to
>> >accept certain rules. Once, and for all, this is *not* a free gift.
>> >If this was the case, the atheist would get a *free salvation* and
>> >receive eternal life, without selling his/her soul to a particular
>> >brand of Christianity. 
> 
>>   the forgiveness is free and undeserved, accepting jesus has costs.
>> like enduring the scorn of skeptics in here.  :)

>...in other words there ain't no such thing as free salvation - TANSTAFS.

  well accepting it is free, but enduring the scorn of others is 
worth the fruit.  don't think it's not.
From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:06:27 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1992Aug24.053930.8242@en.ecn.purdue.edu>  
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
> [interesting personal testimony deleted]
> 
> Carnal Christianity (Savior but not Lord) is not fulfilling.  I tried
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> it for a while.  God knows what is good for me more than I do!

     Could you expand more on what you mean by "carnal Christianity"? The  
reason I ask is because from your personal testimony, it sounds like your  
perspective is basically evangelical Protestant. Many evangelical  
Protestants often use "carnal Christianity" as a code phrase for  
"Catholicism" (and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy as well). So, are you using  
this phrase in the above sense, or do you have something else in mind?

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer

  

     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex
From: pochanay@cae.wisc.edu (Adisak Pochanayon)
Subject: Re: Circumcision
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:23:45 CDT

In article <3RsFqB1w165w@halcyon.com> Buck Godot <bgodot@halcyon.com> writes:

>but is removing an appendix, or tonsils mutilation?

      I certainly wouldn't want someone to remove my appendix or tonsils unless
it was an urgent medical necessity.  I certainly wouldn't cut the tonsils out
of my eight day old son.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:26:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.134255.15272@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> > Even withing a religious context, any discussion of watchtower theology
> > by necessity, requires that logical concepts be ignored.
 
> 	Good ! Sometimes I'm afraid of posting dull articles. Read 1 Cor. 2:14, 
> 	it explains. 

Does it explain why illogical statements are funny? If so, why are 
you then using illogical statements, making people laugh instead
of believing. It reminds me of a saying that it's far worse to
be laughted at, instead of hated or loved. Dan Quayle is also
suffering from this.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: This pi=3 business
Organization: Somebody didn't study math in school
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:14:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.164010.4549@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
<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.
<Ever heard of rounding off ?
<Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One

Two.

<Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One

Two.

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

Divide two numbers of two significant digits and you can keep two in the answer,
well, sort of, depends. There is this thing called round off error but it is
a second order effect.

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

Yes, and Pi=3.1 *IS CORRECT* to two significant digits. If you construct a
circle of diameter 10, the correct circumference is 31, to two digits. Are you
saying that your God is only accurate to one digit? Not so sharp at math eh?

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

30 is an error, the correct answer is 31 to two digits accuracy. And it's not
like we are talking ppm error here. Make your own circle of diameter 10 inches
and measure the circumference. You should get 31 unless you are a slob. Are
you saying that your God is not very accurate? Was he an "every tool is a
hammer engineer"? If it don't fit, make it? Make the numbers fit?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Get Up! Stan' Up! Stan' Up for your Right!
	<1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <sbuckley.714784977@sfu.ca> 
	<17g3d3INNp8o@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <l9nh7fINNo9e@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<17glc9INNqfs@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <graham.714962138@galois>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:00:40 GMT

(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!

me writes:
Faith is believing something as possibly true, but always questioning its
validity and not following it blindly. 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!