HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:50:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715475533@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik writes:
> >Omnipotence implies that this God is able to create a situation where
> >free will and happiness works hand-in-hand. He wasn't able to do this,
> >and he also regretted this by trying to kill the whole human population
> >with the Flood (also killing all the poor animals, why, I don't know).
> 
>   please go read your bible again and learn how god didn't try and then
> fail in killing everything.  you're misreading the bible to portray the
> flood this way.  please see genesis 6-9.

Please read the cite above and let us know how you could state me
saying that God failed in killing every human being? Huh? I said
that God wasn't able to create a world where humans live in happiness,
and have free will at the same time. Please read what other people write,
thanks.

>   then i suggest you read the bible.  his word should give you a lot
> more sense of what he's offering you than i could ever relate to you 
> over the net.  read the gospels to learn about the person of jesus,
> philippians for a sense of joy found in him and ephesians for a sense
> of love and action that leads to the righteous way.  if you're seeking
> god, be sure to keep an open mind and don't be quick to emotionally
> condemn things that initially may bug you.  be wary of irrational
> emotional responses against aspects of christianity, and seek the
> truth with a truly seeking mind--not a mind quick to condemn.

The problem is that my rationally trained mind is day for day
more suspect to garbage-in garbage-out propaganda material. I'm
open minded, I'm so open minded I would even realize that Christianity
was a big mistake!

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:25:57 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Mathew, I suggest you look at the case of Somalia a little closer.
>Unlike places like Angola, Malawi, the northern part of South Africa, 
>etc, (which are suffering from 21 months of drought), the Somalian 
>problem is entirely self-induced. Somalia has not been in a drought and
>used to have a strong agricultural sector capable of feeding the 
>country and many of its neighbours. The reason they cannot feed 
>themselves has nothing to do with being able to feed themselves, and 
>everything to do with civil war. If they would stop fighting, they do 
>have the resources to feed themselves.

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Feeding themselves is not the issue.  The main issue is the enormous 
>damage being done ALL over the world by increasing populations which 
>are expanding into jungle and other environments and destroying them.
>Read about the damage done to non-human species in Madagascar, Brazil,
>all over North America, Asia, etc.

I was replying to a claim that Somalia was a good example of where
food shortages were being caused by over-population. I was pointing
out that this claim was not true.

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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:08:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.716399712@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> An explanation of this (and I don't remember which theologian came up with
> it) is that God is omnipotent, but also limited. ;-)  Here's how is works:
> Before God creates, He has absolute omnipotence to create exactly as he
> pleases.  Once He has created, he is self-limited by the rules He has made.
> In other words, once God constructs the Universe, He limits Himself to
> follow the rules He Himself has established.

So, that implies that God is a paradox, something that is omnipotent,
but also has limitations (compare our earlier discussion about free
will implying the potential of sinning). I would accept this fact,
that God is a paradox, that we will never understand, and as in the
case of "This sentence is false" case, we can't even figure out how
to unroll such paradoxes because we are looking at the problem
from the wrong end.

In your case for instance maybe the Christian view of God's omnipotence
and free will creates more dilemmas than solves them. If we had
a similar problem in science, there's an evident need for a better
theory.

Cheers,
Kent
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Brainwashing
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:59:59 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

(Stephen D Murray) writes:

                         I gather that the practices of cults/revivalists
 are so powerful that they  can get you in *one* session EVEN IF YOU KNOW
 EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. 

Ah, this explains why George Bush is president.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:48:57 GMT

	Kent, olet taysimittainen kusipaa. Eipa sen enempaa.

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep10.021400.12873@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<exukjb.151.716250175@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:09:53 GMT

In article <exukjb.151.716250175@exu.ericsson.se> 
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>This post was too long, interesting, but too long. 

Well, that could be, but why did you have to list the entire thing in
your followup, just to prove it was long? Well, I have to admit I got a
laugh out of it, here I was looking at the whole thing and I was
expecting some kind of insite and I get to the end and it says the thing
is too long.

>The real difficulty with 
>the christian god-concept is that it presupposes the moral superiority of a 
>being who can create eternal inferiors over a being who could create beings 
>exactly like himself. 

Well, this is the view of the Christian God as stern taskmaster, the
father who beats his kids regularly to show them who's boss, the father
who says this is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you, the father who
puts something desirable right in front of you and says don't touch this
or some of your body parts will fall of. But for each Christian that
holds that kind of view there is a Christian who believes that the
Christian God is transcendent, transcendent of concepts like moral
superiority. We humans may argue about morals and superiority, but the
transcendent is transcendent of such every day human concepts. Oh, and
by the way, your original followup was too long, interesting, but too
long. ::::::B^}
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Jah Guides, jah better be ready for rock stead easy!
	<1992Sep14.210645.4988@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.210645.4988@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>So why didn't God make a world with the rule "sacrifices in ancient times,
>no sacrifices now"?  What he really did, according to you, was make a world
>where sacrifices were needed both then and now, and then kludge around the
>latter by sending Jesus to get rid of the "now" part.  A rather roundabout
>method.  Why didn't he just make the world without it to begin with?

Because of "free-will" and the continuous nature of the creation of human. In
other words, your kind was created with free will and created with a brain,
to take part and get involved in the story of the creation of human. The Creator
did not create you with knowledge of good and bad, it was you who gained this
of your own initiative. Once slavery was OK, now we know that no human being
is a slave because the Lord delivered our kind FROM freedom, but it is us
who must KNOW this fact, it is us who must SEE. Once patriarchy was OK, now
we see that women are human being also, and must have equal rights and
justice also, this has always been the case, but it is WE who must SEE this
as such. Once it was assumed that Europeans were superior to all other races,
now we SEE that this is not and never was the case. Now, do you SEE? Human
being did not come into existance at the creation of Adam and Eve, it did not
come into creation when they ate the fruit, it did not come into creation
when they were birthed or expelled from the place of conception, it did not
come into creation at the times of the great books, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the
Mahabharata, the Bible, it did not come into creation at the time of the
Magna Carta, nor at the time of the US Bill of Rights, nor at the Emancipation
Proclamation, nor at the 1965 Civil Rights Act. There is one constant in the
life of human being and that is change. Creation goes on everyday, everyday
we progress and write a new chapter in the book of the creation of the human
being. Didn't I, clear the land, and didn't I, plant the corn, and didn't I,
work the fields? Get ready, we're gonna ride that freedom train. I am
everyday people, everyday. Coyote and fox created the world, ... but then 
again, they do so everyday, that is they are always recreating, always
changing what was into what is and what will be, ... but so does the human
being do this also, and yet, ... why do we not notice? Why do we not see our
own hand at work, like the handprints in the caves in France? Didn't I clear
the land, as prophesized, and didn't I plant the corn, as prophesized, and
didn't I work the fields, as prophesized? Are you ready to ride that train?
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 8 Sep 1992 00:08:53 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <92250.103304HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>theory.  At any rate.  The inital goal of proving contradictions in the
>Qur'an has failed.  Of course that still does not answer the questions:
>is the Qur'an consistent with modern science, and is the Qur'an a revelation
>from God.  Simply because a book lacks contradictions does not prove it
>is infallible revelation.
 
Did you see my earlier posting on the Qur'an and science?  I can either
email it to you, or repost again, if there is enough interest.
 
Ahmed A. Abd-Allah


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: An addition to the family!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:10:18 GMT

>In article <1992Sep6.213407.12823@spss.com> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>To the usual suspects here in these groups:
>>
>>I and my wife Chris are proud to anounce the arrival of Joshua Stephen
>>Adams at 7:52 AM on Saturday, Sept. 5,  Joshua weighed in at 8lbs and 14oz,
>>and was 20.5 inches long.  Mom and baby are doing fine, and came home this
>>morning (Sunday).  Joshua joins Matthew 3 1/2 and Michael 2 in our
>>household.
>>
>>So, if I'm lax in responding, never fear, it just means one of my kids
>>needs attention!  I'll be away from the office for a week...but hopefully
>>not away from the net...
>>
>> -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


---- What a pleasant surprise.  It is nice to hear of a new birth.  It is
hard, however, to tell if this is the baby of Steve Adams or not, I am not
too good at reading the > and >>'s and >>>'s.  Whoever the baby is for, I
congratulate you and your wife, and wish you and your newest part of the
family well.

God Bless,
Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Objective Truth
Date: 9 Sep 1992 16:36:41 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Kent Sandvik) writes:

 I still don't subscribe to the notion that religious movements
 have a monopoly on the doctrines. Reading peoples' comments on t.r.m
 has even enhanced this personal observation. And no objective
 truth means no truth.
 
I suppose the last sentence is the most interesting one to
me, and it depends on how one would define "objective"; does
your assertion mean there is no "subjective truth"?

If so, I would have to disagree. I can say I saw a shooting
star last night that no one else saw or measured; it could
be a matter of subjective truth as to whether what I say
actually occured, yet as far as I'm concerned, it did.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:03:32 GMT

> 
>People who accuse atheists of being cowards, moral weaklings, etc. might
>benefit from considering that to be an atheist in North America is sort of
>like being a Christian in (what used to be) the Soviet Union. You are
>officially tolerated, but the foundation of the state, of societal
>morality, etc. is all based on a doctrine that considers you the enemy.
>You are regarded as a deviant, and a threat, by the majority of your
>fellow-citizens. I suspect this is much more the case in the U.S. than in
>Canada, but even here, to declare yourself an atheist is the same as
>declaring yourself to be a Communist - people look at you funny, write
>you off as a loony, regard you as untrustworthy, and try to convert you
>back to "normalcy."
> 

I have had a much different experience. I have been openly atheistic since
adolescence, and the only people who ever seemed threatened or antagonistic
as a result were fundamentalists and born agains. My experience living in 
Dallas for nearly ten years has been surprising. Here in the Bible belt, I 
have found many people freely confess to also being atheistic when they realize
I am. The only respect in which it has made my life slightly more difficult is
that I find my self sometimes offended by others justifying actions on the 
basis of religious beliefs. Basically, I've learned that there's a time to keep
your mouth shut and let others wallow in their ignorance if it makes them
happy. People don't like overbearing, preaching atheists any more than
overbearing, preaching fundamentalists.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Brainwashing
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:43:03 GMT

murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: >Could you define brainwashing for us?  Isn't any form of 
: >indoctrination "brainwashing"?
: 
:  By brainwashing I meant the practice of putting ideas into people's heads 
: without convincing those people 'normally' or even without them knowing about
: it; I gather this is what these cults get up to. 

What is 'normally'?  Via evidence?  Does Christianity provide reasonable
evidence?  It seems to me that their evidence is reasonable only if
you are brainwashed into believing it is so.  For example, when I
was a theist, I was taught and believed that since no one could prove
that God didn't exist that this was evidence for his existence.

:  I guess my idea of the difference between ordinary rhetoric and brainwashing is whether or not you can avoid
: being converted to the indoctrinators' point of view- from a lot of the stuff
: people have sent to me, I gather that the practices of cults/revivalists
: are so powerful that they  can get you in *one* session EVEN IF YOU KNOW
: EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. 

Does 'normal' religious indoctrination qualify here?  Are children
given the tools and information to recognize faulty reason in their
beliefs?  Are they given a chance to know they are receiving biased
information even if it is True?

:           (I should point out that this is just the impression I get from 
: what I've read and I don't have any real evidence).
: 
:  Neuro linguistics seems to be a means of self-advancement rather than
: a brainwashing technique, but I gather a form of it is used in brainwashing.
: The only way to avoid being brainwashed by a cult is to stay as far away
: as possible from them, as far as I can gather.

I think a better way is to be trained to examine all sides of the
issue rationally and understand them thoroughly.  Ignorance is a
poor defense.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:07:34 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

 <2667@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:
>> THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
>> A LOVING GOD.
>>
> From a Christian perspective, based on the Bible (as I read it of course),
> there is a tension here.  And this tension is maintained throughout the
> scriptures.  The tension is that of the complex nature of God.  From a 
> Biblical basis, yes, God is loving.  
>                                     But that does not say enough.  That is
>>simply one aspect of God.  The Bible also portrays God as the just judge.
> 

Here's what I think: this "justice" is incompatible with any meaningful
definition of loving. HE creates us as the miserable sinning creatures we
supposedly are - then he "justly" condemns us for being miserable
sinning creatures.  

a) that is not justice, except in the most circular sense ("God is just,
so whatever he does is just by definition")

b) it is ruthless in the extreme. In fact, it goes beyond ruthless to 
cruel, infinitely cruel, and by definition, infinitely heartless.

c) and don't start talking about his "sacrifice" of his son...come on -
the guy suffered for a few hours and then was resurrected to eternal
glory.  And he KNEW he wasn't really going to die permanently. Pauline
theology is a mess - but no one will admit it! Well - almost no one...you
know who you are...:)

AS Gordon Storga writes:

> But, Jesus is god.  And Jesus isn't dead, is he?  If he is god and he
> didn't die, then what did he sacrifice?  Sounds like the old cosmic shell
> game to me - "Let's see, I'll set up this situation where my 'creations'
> cannot possibly live up to my expectations.  Then I'll kill them for it,
> or at the least punish them a lot.  But, just to keep them interested in
> me, I'll send 'part of me' down there to 'die' so that I'll be satisfied
> for these mortals sinning.  If they fall for all this then I won't kill
> kill them <maniacal laughter fades into the background...>

I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this challenge. Go for it,
lads...

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca 

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith." -- Oscar Wilde
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 02:42:27 GMT

In article <18grqmINN58t@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>Nothing wrong with selfishness, but I think that there is some benefit
>in taking a longer term more enlightened approach to it.  Overpopulation
>may not affect you today (I think it does) but you ought to be a little
>worried about what it might do to you tommorrow.
>
>Me:
>Do you honestly think the U.S. has to worry about overpopulation?  The only
>problem is 3rd world environmental damage.  Plus, like I said, that damage is
>nothing compared to the damage done by the U.S. to the environment.

I can't make any sense out of this.  What do you think the results of
overpopulation are, if not excessive damage to the environment?  If you
consider the 3rd world to be overpopulated because of environmental
damage, why would you not think the same of the U.S.?

And yes, even if we North Americans were not big contributors to trashing
the environment, we should still be very worried about what is happening
in other parts of the world.  For example, it doesn't matter who does
the pumping of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere -- global
warming will affect us all.  Not only that, but as long as there is such
a skewed distribution of wealth in the world, and as long as there are
people who do not have their basic needs met, none of us will be secure.
Sorry if that sounds like pinko propaganda, but it happens to be true.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.athiesm
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:31:55 GMT

In article <adams.716476933@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>An explanation of this (and I don't remember which theologian came up with
>>>it) is that God is omnipotent, but also limited. ;-)  Here's how is works:
>>>Before God creates, He has absolute omnipotence to create exactly as he
>>>pleases.  Once He has created, he is self-limited by the rules He has made.
>>>In other words, once God constructs the Universe, He limits Himself to
>>>follow the rules He Himself has established.
>>So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
>>by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
>>should ever want to forgive sin?
>The rules are the way they are because God desired free worship from free
>moral agents.  Thus, he established the ground rules at creation.  I don't
>see that they are necessarily 'dumb'...just perhaps beyond our complete
>understanding....

I was afraid you'd say this.  It has problems.

If God creates people who are incapable of sinning, it is quite conceivable
that they cannot have free will (well, I can still argue it, but that's beside
the point).  In order to be free, you need to be free to sin, also.

But what I was asking was not why God couldn't create a world _without_ sin.
What I was asking was why God couldn't create a world _with_ sin, but where
the mechanism for forgiving it is simpler than putting Jesus on the cross.
If a world where sin is forgiven through Jesus has people with free will, then
a world where sin is forgiven through God alone also should have people with
free will.  I am not asking why God cannot create people incapable of sinning
at all, just why he can't create one where the forgiveness process is
different.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)