HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:41:09 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>: Young Jeff writes:
>: 
>I have been an atheist since high school over 15 years ago, but I don't
>feel my suffering is any greater than it was during my theist days.  It
>is less in fact.  From my experience it appears that bad things happen
>to Christians just as often as non-Christians.  Do you claim otherwise?
>If all you are claiming is that Christians suffer less under similar
>situations, I think this is easily explained by psychological factors.
>I refuse to believe in God just to gain a psychological crutch.

  heaven on earth is not promised.  this is a world where suffering exists.
debating the origin of suffering is another thread, but when i suffer
i do make it through via the grace of god lifting me out.  what's wrong
with god as a crutch when there is a whole industry of self-help books,
therapists and analysts all there to help people cope with suffering.

>:                                                                    through
>: suffering, though, christians often end up closer to god merely by leaning
>: on him to be lifted out of the burden.  
>: 
>:   second thing is that i don't wish the trials of job on you or anyone
>: and i wish it didn't take similar crash and burn experiences for me
>: to turn to god as a first rather than a last resort.  rather god's offer
>: of a relationship with him is available to all who'll accept the offer
>: of his son to bring us to him.  so yeah, it's available to anyone who
>: wants it.

>But the price of accepting it is too high.  After much thinking and
>reading, it appears to me that Christianity is indistinguishable
>from the other religious myths of the world.  To make a leap of faith
>past my doubts would be intellectual suicide.  Will God condemn me to
>hell for lacking credulity?  Why is credulity considered a virtue in
>Christianity but nowhere else?

  the price for accepting jesus is having a relationship with god and receiving
his spirit and guidance in leading a good life.  credulity is a virtue
in nothing.  i spent 10 years exploring all sorts of alleged routes to god
before i spent a whole year examining what jesus offered me in terms
of salvation, personal healing and answering my metaphysical questions.
there has been no suicide in my intellect beyond dropping the intellectual
position that there can be no right answers--that philosophy was one of
the most empty ones i ever held before.
---                          
     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: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:30:17 GMT

In article <exukjb.70.713569880@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>And Jesus himself says (quoting David I think it is) that '
>I have said, ye are the gods, and children of the most high...' Yes, there 
>are alot of gods in the bible.

The above quote from Psalm 82 (or somewhere around there) deserves quick
comment.  The confusion in English comes from the Hebrew word Elohim, which
literally means "judge" but is also used as a name for God.  In the Psalm
(verse 6), it says "God (Elohim) says you will be gods (elohim, judges)."
(not an exact quote; you can look it up for the exact statement).  So the 
Psalmist is not saying that we are all gods, but that men will also be
judges.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:13:07 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: Young Jeff writes:
: >How do Christians justify their claim that theirs is a monotheistic
: >religion?  It seems to me that not just God but Satan et al qualify 
: >for the distinction of being gods in every normal sense.  I realize 
: >that Christians only worship the one called God, but that doesn't mean 
: >that the others don't qualify for the distinction as well.  Is it 
: >that the claim of monotheism is just a rationalization to discredit 
: >and differentiate themselves from the pagans?
: 
:   if you wanna define "gods in every normal sense" as spiritual entities
: with more power than humans then i suppose there are billions of gods.  but
: all gods [according to the bible] were created equal [as it were].  one
: god claims to be the one true creator god above all the rest.  and as i 
: christian, i do not worship the one true god to rationalize out of relevance
: all those other spiritual entities with power.  on the contrary, my 
: experience with spritual powers other than god in part led me to the
: one true god...so it behooves me none to pretend that pagans are wrong
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can't help thinking you are saying two contradictory things.  You
admit that lesser gods exist, yet persist in claiming there is "one
true god."  Can a lesser god be false, yet still exist?

: and there aren't spiritual powers out there, because i KNOW there are, it's
: just that i choose not to have anything to do with all the lesser "gods".

This is a wonderful justification for henotheism, but the claim that
Christianity is a monotheistic religion is still unsupported other 
than the assertion that God is the "one true god", whatever that means.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:03:59 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <16048@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. 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.  Thus, the chosen
|> will not be those who perform vile deeds, but those who are
|> good.  I think Calvin's position is probably the logical result
|> of taking seriously the ideas of both an omniscient and omnipotent
|> God.  A complete foreknowledge of all future events implies
|> that there is only one possible future (the one God foreknows
|> will occur) and so He knows who is saved and who is damned already.
|> I've yet to hear anyone who believes in the omni* adjectives for
|> God give me a good explanation for how it could be otherwise.


	Yes, but they have a hundred bad explanations, and surely
	a hundred bad explanations equals one good explanation.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14160 talk.origins:9629
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:43:14 EST
 <1992Aug12.133830.9353@cs.joensuu.fi> <1992Aug13.122109.3425@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug17.051240.14937@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug17.051240.14937@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Sigh.... 'Missing links' (not a very accurate term, but, obviously we
>>are not talking to a science student here) are evidence FOR macroevolution!
> 
> 	Yes, we're talking. I know the evolution theory, for I'm a biologist !
> 	How could the lack of evidence be an evidence ? 
> -- 

Because the term 'missing link' is a misnomer.


> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: rip@sequent.com (Paul T Taylor)
Subject: Re: More theological Questions to Ponder
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 01:48:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.212132.8582@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>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

We all *know* that Marine CAS is the best in the World!!

>2. MAF: Marine Amphibious Force
>
>{etc, etc, etc... }
>
>In the Bible, this is therefore Clear Proof
>that the USMC is a ToolOfTheDevil[tm]?????

And what is the problem with this?  After all we are also known as
'DevilDogs', a nickname we wear with pride...

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

'Casual'?  When the hell have *you* ever been 'JustaCasualObserver'?
Not bloody likely...

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

Oh, sure.... Right... I believe ya....

By the way, me and LF kicked some butt on T2 at the MiniGolf place....

rip
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: I'd've been xtian, except for Luke 14:26 and ...
	<1992Aug17.174218.9842@oclc.org> <maoh.714113178@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:24:14 GMT

In article <maoh.714113178@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu> 
maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran) writes:
>Satan is actually God having a bad day.
>Satan = God   => monotheism.

Well, you've stumbled on a big Christian contraversy. Is God only good? Or
is God also bad? Is Satan = !God or, as you say, is Satan just God on a
bad day? For a religion that's supposed to answer questions, this is a bit
strange. Christianity is so mixed up that it generates more new questions
than it tries to answer. The problem is that through most of their history,
they burned the intellectuals that could tell them how to straighten things
out. So as a result, today they are a mixed up confused collection of fish
mongers, fishers of men and free gift gimick used car salesman technitions.
Certainly poly, although the theism part may be more commercialism. They do
put on a good show though, it's hard to beat Christian TV.

>Seriously, some Jews are honestly monotheists. 

Most Jews are true monotheists. There is but ONE LORD in Israel. I am than
I am. Jah Ras Tafari.

>Satan in the OT is more of a folktale, not an actual being. 
>Makes you wonder about the kind of God some people believe in that
>damns man not only for their own sinful nature but also has created
>and permits Satan to constantly tempt and trick them.  
>Anyone have a slant on the role of Satan in Jewish theology?

The concept of Satan and Devil and Lucifer is Christian or perhaps a
Christian misunderstanding or mistranslation. Read JPS:Tanakh, there is
no LORD of the underworld, there are evil spirits of course and these are
the FALSE GODS of other cultures. Lord of the underworld is Greco-Roman. If 
you do wrong by the Jewish Lord, it is He alone who will punish you, not some 
sidekick lord of the underworld. Keep in mind that Judaism does not claim to 
be the only way for all people, it claims to be the only way for the chosen 
people, the Jews. Of course, it was never stated what they were chosen for.
The Lord delivered them FROM slavery, not into another form of slavery or
master worship, and thus they were the chosen people, however the Lord never
said what they were chosen for. That is left as an exercise for the student.
The Lord gave humans brains to think, not to be idoliters and to become
mindless slaves to another master. The Lord gave the Law such that the chosen
could use their minds to interpret how it applied to their individual
situations. There was actually one more commmandment, but Moses dropped the
stone and it cracked, so he forgot it. The missing commandment is, learn
from dogma, but please don't be dogmatic.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.154613.3720@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21081947@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
>vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>>     There was nevertheless an interesting determination as to the mathe-
>>matical probability I believe of an important molecule (perhaps DNA),
>>forming on its own, and the probability was so small as to be nonexistent.
>>I believe it was a French scientist, and the number was 10 to the some-
>>where between 74 and 141 or so AGAINST its forming.  Like I said, if 
>>anyone wants to believe in creation, they may tend to accept this first
>>chance, whereas those who don't first chance will say this isn't true
>>and I am lying without even checking it out.
>
>     No one is going to accuse you of lying, only of falling for a
>flawed argument.  The calculation you quote is well-known but contains a
>number of flaws.  The most glaring one is that it assumes more-or-less
>direct self-assembly from nothing.  I don't think that any modern
>workers in prebiotic evolution would say that DNA just sprang into being
>from the primordial soup; the usual assumption is rather that the first
>organisms didn't use DNA at all.  There is not widespread agreement as
>to how exactly the first organisms arose; some hypothesize protein-only
>organisms, others prefer scenarios where RNA served as both genetic
>material and catalyst, still others advocate early "organisms" which used
>neither.  We will probably never know.
>     Unless God suddenly chooses to reveal Himself to us, we will never
>know whether He exists.  Science should therefore proceed without
>assuming that He does since science is a discipline based on physical
>evidence and not on metaphysics.  Those of us who believe in Him (and that
>includes me) should not take these beliefs with us into the laboratory;
>that way lies poor science and poorer theology.

     Hear, hear.

                              dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Summary: Who is the ONE who can JUDGE?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug19.153729.23572@linus.mitre.org> 
	<f0tT03R265oV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:54:38 GMT

>>Astounding!  You are so powerful as to know the hidden intentions of GOD!!!
>>Omniscient, perhaps?

In article <f0tT03R265oV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>I've been friends with many people for quite some time, say 25 years. 
>In the course of said friendships, we've really had a chance to talk
>and get to know one another by sharing experiences, desires, goals, etc.
>While we can't read each others minds, we can get a pretty good idea 
>what they're thinking at times and how they would react in certain 
>situations, and what they would say in certain converstations. Spending
>time with someone is the best way to get to know them. The same is
>true with God and it appears obvious Mr. Meritt hasn't quite figured
>this one out, not having a relationship with Father God through Jesus. 
>Yo Jim, God wants you to get to know Him, the choice is yours and yours
>alone.

Ah, speaking of relationships, don't you think you're being a bit
egotistical here, prehaps even somewhat demonic? Have you ever
considered that it may be YOU, JIM, who should get to know your God better?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:49:56 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>Gen. 7:19

>--

>That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
>knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.

	No, where is it mentioned ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:55:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.001309.23935@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (The Church Lady) sneers:
>---- REALLY DAVE, Are you quite through showing everyone here how
>brilliant a debater you are.  I certainly am impressed.

>As I have said many many
>many times before, predestination only applies to Salvation.

Oh, is THAT all?!  You had me concerned there for a moment.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dil@sce.carleton.ca (Dave Laurenson)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:54:22 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
>for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
>accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
>don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
>it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
>accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
>or not.

By your argument then, there is some action involved - that of
accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ as a sacrificial saviour.
Judgement is based on what we do with Christ - provided that we know
about Christ of course.  As to what happens to those who don't know
about Christ we could get into a really long and unproductive
argument.  Ultimately God will judge those who don't know of Christ
justly based on what knowledge they do have.  An albeit poor
indication of this can be seen in John 9 verse 41

	Jesus said to them, "If you were blind,  you would have no
	sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."  (NIV)

This provokes all kinds of interesting arguments.  The basic facts are
that by our "actions" each one of us has transgressed God's law (or
however much of that law we know).  So by rights, each one of us
deserves God's judgement and punishment (death and separation from
God).  So it is true that we are judged on our actions and knowledge.
However, as you point out, Jesus took that punishment on Himself.  Now
it is up to each individual to either accept or reject that gift.  For
those that don't know of Christ, how can I say what God will use as
criteria for judgement - but certainly our actions towards God will be
used.

Dave.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - Church teaching on masturbation
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:54:31 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

Lets see according to the catholic church homosexuals and people who
masturbate are disordered. Lets see 30% of the population has had sex
with the same sex, I wonder what percentage masturbates :-)

And the catholic church wonders why its losing members!

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:59:47 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714033633@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>  yeah, this road was travelled down a few weeks ago with santa instead
>of the great pumpkin.  without rehashing it all, i'll state my final
>conclusion which is that god is not a hypothetical abstract thing that
>has no bearing on individual lives.
That's just begging the question. That is PRECISELY what I am
suggesting that God is. Or rather, I am suggesting that
there is no reason to suggest that God is any less hypothetically
abstract than the GP.(or Santa.)

> if he were, it would be a pretty
>pathetic creation.  the value of a philosophy/spirituality is derived by
>its successful workings in the actual lives of people
This is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the philosophy, as I
tried to explain to you before.
I see no reason to accept the premise that a lie cannot make
you happier than the truth.
> [and i can give
>long testimony to the life of jesus in me].
And I can, I am sure, find you several people who can give
testimony to the effect of Allah in their lives.

>  what separates a hypothetical
>from reality is whether there is a great pumpkin as bearer of a covenant
>between god and humanity.  show me one and i'll realistically consider
>it as i do jesus, but until then it's all a somantic/mind game with words
>that do not really affect any of our lives.
Show me a Jesus who is the bearer of a covenant between God and
humanity. I don't see one. What I do see is a bunch of ancient
writings[albeit some of them quite impressive, some not so impressive]
and a bunch of people who believe those writings. I don't see
a single shred of evidence that those writings have any
relation to the real existence of any sort of god, any more than
I see evidence that the somewhat smaller corpus of writings about
the Great Pumpkin bears any relation to the real existence of
the GP.

What separates a hypothetical from reality, Mr. Buckley, is evidence
indicating that it is more than hypothetical. Funny that you should
present none.

-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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14346 talk.origins:9797