HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More theological Questions to Ponder
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:21:32 GMT


given the recent debate about numbers five, and 
whether or not since there is an absence of the
Token 'abortion' in the text, hence it is irrelevant
to have the notion read as a part of the Text....


Since I have Yet to find: 

1. CAS: Close Air Support

2. MAF: Marine Amphibious Force

{etc, etc, etc... }

In the Bible, this is therefore Clear Proof
that the USMC is a ToolOfTheDevil[tm]?????

A point that is Intuitively Self Evidently Intrinsicly 
Obvious to the Casual Observer of the 'little green machine.'


ciao
drieux


ps: Not that I would wish to suggest or allude to
any form of intraservice rivalry.....




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:13 GMT

In article <10206@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>>you!
>

And giddy-up to you, dude.  Better make a run for the dictionary.  OK,
OK, -- a hint:  WOE, you crackerfaced illiterate!  WOE!

Thank you all for your indulgence.  I feel much better.  We now return
you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:02:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Gordon Banks writes:
>I have little truck with John Calvin, but couldn't he simply
>answer that God, being omniscient, knows every act that every
>person will perform already before they do it.

mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:
>Actually, this is (IMHO) the point of confusion which spawned 
>Calvinism : an inability to separate foreknowledge and causality.
>Calvinists say that if God knows all of what is going to happen, that
>means he is the motivator/cause of that action.

As I read Calvin, this is not his motivation.  Calvin is very
concerned with God's sovereignty.  That is, for him it is important to
be able to see everything that happens as a gift from God, and
intended to our ultimate benefit (speaking of the elect, obviously).
Even evil people are part of God's plan.  To think otherwise would be
to leave us at the mercy of forces that wish us ill and which God is
in no position to do anything about.  Foreknowledge is not enough --
it's important to Calvin that God is actually in control.

While I admire much of Calvin, I can't follow him here.  Much of human
life -- including things described in the Bible -- make sense to me
only on the assumption that God has decided to provide a certain
degree of autonomy for his creation.  This does not mean I think he
leaves us at the mercy of antagonistic forces.  I think his plans can
take them into account.  But I find it hard to conceive that he is
responsible for them.

However I don't think Calvin was confused.  He understood what he was
saying, and has dealt with many of the implications in a more
satisfying way that some summaries of Calvinism imply.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:53:52 GMT

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


> <This is similar to the Trinity.  There is one God, who manifests himself
> <in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Just because there are three 
> <manifestations does not mean there are three gods.  There is only one God.
> 
>(Paul Harvey) writes:

> So, is Hinduism with it's one transcendent and three aspects called Brahma,
> Vishnu, Shiva, polytheism or monotheism? Is there really a difference
> between monotheism and polytheism or have these words only served to try
> to make one religion better or more valid that all others?
> 
>Yes there is a difference. Many were murdered by the catholic church
>for not accepting the trinity. And even more have been killed over
>monotheism vs. polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etcetra. It was
>monotheism that most vehemently proclaimed it was right and everyone
>else was wrong. 

>If you prayed more to Athena, and I to Venus, we probably wouldn't
>try and kill each other; historically monotheism has not been so
>benign.

  yeah, but you throw the baby out with the bath water if you ignore
jesus [who said to love our neighbours] and judge him as being irrelevant
because a whole bunch of people perverted his message and thought they
were allowed to kill people in his name when there is no indication that they
were justified in doing so.

---                          
     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,talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: To Herb Sutter.  Good insight, Herb.
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.211114.16264@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.022131.454@sdf.lonestar.org> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>>1) How did the Supreme Being get here?
>
>In a stretch Cadillac limo?
>
>>2) Why does man have an appendix?
>
>Because God forgot to include everything in the main body of man's text?
>
>>3) Why does man have nipples?
>
>Chests look awfully funny without them?
>
>>4) Why does man have the vestiges of a tail bone?  Why do some babies
>>(very rarely) have fleshy tails at birth?
>
>God likes jokes?
>
>>5) Why do man's genes (semen) pass through the verysame opening
>>our liquid wastes (urine) go through?  Just think of such wonderful
>>design.
>
>You think that's bad -- just look at birds and lizards, in which all wastes
>go through the same opening that contains the sex organs, not just the liquid
>wastes.
>

HAHAHAH. that's right...what about the monotremes...one hole

>>6) Why was a whale, _Basilosaurus isis_, found in the deserts of Egypt
>>with the clear remnants of hind legs? (pelvis, tibia, fibula, etc, etc)
>
>Because it wanted to get to the other side?
>
>>7) Why do some snakes have vestigial pelvises?  
>
>Ah, this is easy.  Snakes had legs before God cursed them for tempting Eve
>to try the forbidden fruit.

You know, I just had a discussion with my parents the other night, asking
them this question, and that's the exact answer that they used!!!
They said when the snake deceived Eve, after that God told it it would
crawl on the dirt or whatever...i guess snakes used to have legs until
God destroyed them?!?!?
>
>>8) Why does man develop gill slits when developing in the mother's wound?
>
>You looked!  This is just another example of God's sense of humor.
>
>B^) B^) B^) B^)
>
>   \_\_\_                               \
>    \_   \_          \_                 /   -Pete Zakel
>     \_   \_  \_\_    \_     \_\_       \
>\_\_  \_\_\_ \_   \_ \_\_\_ \_   \_     /       phz@cadence.com
>       \_     \_\_\_    \_   \_\_\_     \    or
>        \_     \_        \_   \_        /       ..!uunet!cadence!phz
>         \_      \_\_      \_   \_\_    \
>
>		Gimmie That Old Time Religion
>
>We will follow Zarathustra,		We will worship like the Druids,
>Zarathustra like we use to,		Dancing naked in the woods,
>I'm a Zarathustra booster,		Drinking strange fermented fluids,
>And he's good enough for me!		And it's good enough for me!
>	(chorus)				(chorus)
>
>In the church of Aphrodite,
>The priestess wears a see through nightie,
>She's a mighty righteous sightie,
>And she's good enough for me!
>	(chorus)
>
>CHORUS:	Give me that old time religion,
>	Give me that old time religion,
>	Give me that old time religion,
>	'Cause it's good enough for me!


-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:48:05 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.150440.27507@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>But how did the oceans manage to stay on land for 40 days? Water lifted
>>>1/2 mile above sea level will want to get back quickly.
>>
>>	Yes, but the mountains weren't so high. 

>Where in the Bible does it state that the mountains weren't so high? How
>could they have grown so much taller in such a short time?

	I give you two hints:                 

			1. Water

			1a Water in the flood
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Cath. Christianity 101 - Taking a few weeks off ...
Date: 20 Aug 1992 13:16:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu


Hi all,

Just want to say, that I'll be gone for a couple of weeks.
So during that time, this series will be suspended.

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:28:53 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug21.050457.129411@zeus.calpoly.edu> rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews) writes:
>redemption ("by allowing TLJC into your Heart" is how it's usually

What does _TLJC_ mean?  Does it mean, "The Lunatic, Jesus Crust?"
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Keywords: flood, water, rain, amounts, mountains, stories, fables, `Woof!'
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:51:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug20.165305.26051@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>
>If we take the story (found in Genesis 6-9) as exactly literally true, and we
>use Mt Everest as our highest mountain, that means that 29,000 feet of rain
>fell in 40 days -- over 30 feet of rain *per hour*.% 
> --

Some apologists claim that the rain only amounted to a few tens of feet.  The
rest of the water came from "the springs of the vast watery deep".  What
"the springs of the vast watery deep" are, however, has not been tackled by
apologists in other than virtually mythological terms.  See arch-creationist
Henry Morris's _The Genesis Flood_, for example.

Any naturalistic explanations of this always neglect certain very basic
physical laws or geological observations, and reduce to the idea that God
must have created the water out of nothing or performed so many miracles to
get around the physical problems that one must ask, Why bother?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: This is SO pointless...etc.
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 22 Aug 1992 11:51:07 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen):

Just back from the Republican national rally perhaps,
issues Bible Nazi call for the cleansing of talk.religion.misc and
posts loyalty oath.

Sig heil!  Sig heil!  Sig heil!

JCtoo
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:57:49 GMT

In article <fRkwlZ#@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Catholic Trinity and Pagan Triple Goddess just coincidence? Perhaps.
Man, you'll really believe anything, won't ya?

>Many scholars have theorized that the Catholics adopted the Trinity to
>make it an easier sell amongst the Pagan Europeans who were familiar
>with the three aspects of Goddess long before Yahweh even existed. It is
>interesting that the original writers of the OT where trying to sell the
>idea of only one God of Israel, as opposed to the polytheism of Babylon
>and Egypt, where the Triple Goddess was well know.
Oh, please.

I'm dying to see you document this. In which texts is the "Triple Goddess"
found in Babylon? In Egypt? I'm sure you have citations to original
source texts. Please share them with us.


-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sola Scriptura (was Re: Perfect Prophets?)
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:18:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:


>     This is one of the big problems I have with Protestant Christianity.  
>Its foundation is built on the principle of "Sola Scriptura". For this to  
>be meaningful, Scripture must be reliable.

Van Kelly recently posted an interesting article on
soc.religion.christian.  He pointed out that it's quite possible to
communicate reliably over a noisy channel.  All you need is
redundancy.  Christian ideas are not based on single passages.  Real
theological work involves studying concepts as they appear across all
of Scripture.  The amount of error in transmission of the text is
insignificant on this scale.  Indeed most Christians who deny
inerrancy believe that the non-textual errors (i.e. errors that were
present in the originals, and not added in the copying process) are
also not sufficient to affect the results.  Note that the real
disagreements among Christians are seldom due to claimed errors in the
original, but rather are based on differences in interpretation.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:47:40 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

><  belief in god is only undue for you because there is no proof in the
><means you would accept.  i accept broader parameters.  it's not undue
><for me.  don't stop forgetting that i spent a decade convinced it was
><undue.  i didn't just wake up one morning feeling intellectually weak
><and i just jumped at salvation.  it was a long arduous process of having
><my incredulity appeased.  god can fulfill all incredulity: doubting
><thomas is the prime example.

>Why do I find this story so difficult to believe? You spent ten years in the
>wilderness and you come back to us sporting a crutch which you say is now
>permanent? It seems to me that you have only found a new slave master. What
>were you doing all those years of exile? Did freedom chase you to the crutch?

  no i found i could not know god on my own based solely on my own
self-sufficiency-intoxicated egotism.  i'm imperfect and i cannot have
a relationship with God(tm) the perfect without his action.  i do not
mind having god as my master.  for all those years of self-imposed exile
i was trying to find god on my own, but i failed to get there.

><incredulity is fine because he can appease
><any amount of it.  it is disbelieving people he will not take home with him.

>Disbelieving in what? Your beliefs? What makes you think that you have THE
>beliefs? Have you ever questioned whether or not that it may be you who
>is disbelieving? What makes you think you've got the right beliefs? Given
>the number of options of "THE ONLY WAY", it seems that the odds of you
>choosing the correct one would be nil. Perhaps you'd better study up on all
>of the options to cover your bet.

  paul, you're not listening to me.  god will not bring to him people who
refuse to believe in him, not in my beliefs.  the bible is what i believe
to be true.  i questioned and disbelieved the authenticity of the bible
for a decade.  i've been saying for weeks the kinds of reasons why i
came to know the bible's truth and i don't have the energy to continue
restating them and all the failed paths i searched.  maybe i'll just
email you the list and then you might stop asking for it.  :)

---                          
     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?"
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: How evil are the Republicans?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:53:42 GMT

I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time. 
A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the
support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I
talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
need another demagogue with too much power.


   _______________________                             _________________
   \        \            /  Michael Lax                |    ACT UP!    |
    \        \          /  12514 Esplanade St., #B     |  FIGHT BACK!  |
     \        \        /  Austin, Texas 78727-4409     |  FIGHT AIDS!  |
      \      / \      /  U.S.A.                        =================
       \    /   \    /  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax) 
        \  /     \  /  email:  lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Please,  \/       \/    
do not    \       /   "If the opposite sex is *supposedly* so much fun, 
feed or    \     /     than why does everyone MASTURBATE?" 
tease the   \   /    
straight     \ /      "Never let the bastards get you down"  
people.       V                      (or is that GO DOWN?)  

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Please Leave!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:21:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.170505.20237@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.153055.20120@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Merit
t) writes:
>>}In article <1992Aug10.183411.13270@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
>>}>}>  [King James and NIV versions of same verse deleted]
>>}
>>}Given that the King James Version was transcribed in 1611, while
>>}original.
>>
>
>Is it then your position that the NIV is a translation of the King James
>or do you maintain that the King James version simply sprang up with
>no precedents?

     Please!  This is not really supposed to be humorous, is it?
It should not be in rec.humor.  Just edit the newsgroups line in
the header.  It's not that difficult.

>******************************************************************************
>Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
>academics are...a chemist, too.
>             -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")
>
>My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
>I doubt they'll start now.
>
>Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts
>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:32:25 GMT


In a previous article, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) says:

>In article <1992Aug20.194558.24392@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>
>>I always wondered why God would have gone to the trouble of the flood, anyway.
>>If he was omnipotent, why didn't he just snap his fingers and "disappear" all
>>the sinful people and animals?  It would have been a lot les miracle-intensive,
>>and would have taken less time.
>>-- 
>
>
>Isaac Asimov wrote in _In the Beginning_, p. 165:  "Whatever their sins, a
>more merciful deity, one might imagine, would have simply swept them painlessly
>out of existence with a word, and begun over again."
>
It's my experience, acording to the accounts of god in the bible, that 
the words "Merciful Deity" is an oxymoron.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc