HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: God's math accuracy was The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fXKMWZi@quack.sac.ca.us> <765354d4350192t257@witsend.uucp>
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:33:52 UTC

In article <765354d4350192t257@witsend.uucp> 
"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>In <fXKMWZi@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)  wrote:
># In article <1993Jan8.192559.29023@radian.uucp> 
># markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
># >In article <1ii275INN5b0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
># ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) writes:
># >>If this is true, then how come his book says that pi = 3.0?
># >Aw, c'mon. 3 is perfectly good enough for a scientific approximation. The
># >order of magnitude is even right!
># Exactly! As they say, one digit accuracy is close enough for God!
>  Take a globe.  Measure the length of the 60th parallel.

OK. The length of the equator would be 2(Pi)R where R is the radius of
the earth, but you didn't ask for that so, let's see. A'ight, 60 degrees
up would give a 30-60-90 right triangle, 30-60-90 being the secret code
for New Orleans, 30N90W60ft below sea level. But, you didn't ask for
that either. OK, but the 30-60-90 right triangle tells us that the new
radius of this circle is precisely 1/2 of the old radius, being opposite of
the 30 degree angle. So, the length of the 60th parallel is (Pi)R.

>  Then
>  measure the length of the great circle path from 60 degrees
>  north 90 degrees west to 60 degrees north 90 degrees east.

OK. 60N90W is probably somewhere in Hudson's Bay, Canada. 60N90E must be
somewhere in the middle of Siberia. These points are directly opposite
of each other so the great circle path is right over the North Pole, Hoe
Hoe Hoe. So what's the distance? That's easy. We are travelling exactly
60 degrees of the equator, assuming the earth to be perfectly round. So,
there are 360 degrees of a circle (what goes around comes around again)
and the answer is: 60/360 x 2(Pi)R = (Pi)R/3.

>  Divide.  Surprise!

Answer 3. Ah, I see the method of your madness.

>  (The instructions say the the 'sea' is to be 30 around and 10
>  across, which is a neat way to specify depth if you are going
>  to beat the whole thing out.  Otherwise, one of the dimensions
>  is redundant, and there's an exegetical axiom that God doesn't
>  waste words.)

I've never heard this explanation before but even I have to admit that
it does make perfect sense. I suppose this means that Haile Selassie I
really was Jah! Ras Tafari! Or at least Jah knew his polar coordinate
system.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:16:44 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <ksand-040193165829@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.053218.20356@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <ksand-301292174650@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> >> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
>> >> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
>> >> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
>> >> then His temptation was bogus. 
>> 
>> It is my understanding that "X is capable of Y" means that there are
>> circumstances under which X would do Y.  This means that God is not capable of
>> sinning.
>
>I guess this is me, logic and Christianity again :-). Sorry, I didn't 
>write this, but I think it's a splendid example of logic and Christianity
>once again, an omnipotent being is not capable of everything. Either
>the premises are unsure and wrong, or something else. I vote for not
>understanding what the real premises are.
>
>Could someone please explain to me how the "God is omnipotent" premise
>could be verified, before we could agree on this, how could we agree
>upon the end result being true or false???
>
>Kent
>-------------------
>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
>DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
>"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

The rigorous atmosphere of logical debate may not be the best place to
suggest this, but could one consider the scenario that an almighty,
all knowing God created a being in his likeness and deliberately separated
himself from him, i.e. creating a space where he, God, was not, and wherein
his creation could develop the capability of freedom?

Picture the creation of the world and of "Adam" as originally a completely
God-filled creation of form and substance.  Then picture the "fall" as a 
kind of gradual "excarnation of God", a process where man finds himself 
more and more removed from the divine presence and developing within
himself a space where he, Man, is and where God is not.  It is said that
the angels can do no other than obey the divine will, so immediately are they
in its presence.  Only a being who lived in an environment from which that
presence was removed could have the possibility of choosing.  The conditions
of this existence are indeed difficult, and their ultimate resolution, which
perhaps, as in the case of the original separation, would again require divine
assistance, is really the Great Mystery.  But if you can entertain the idea 
that God (or the Gods) had in mind something more than a mere creature but another
divine being, one who would ultimately be free, then the conditions of both
human and divine existence and evolution might come into a different perspective.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:49:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>No, it's not that I am proud of them, but I realize that who I was then and
>how I though then, I could have not made a different choice.  So where does
>that leave me?  I'm realistic about the situations.  Who I am now, and what
>I know now, and what I beleive now, tells me that those things are wrong...
>
>It's very confusing at times...

I can see how, yes.  Understanding that you reject free will, helps me to
better understand where you are coming from.

>I'll tell you, I was in your position, and after quite a long discussion
>with Sean over the net, the question of 'free will' is, well, questionable.
>My theology is still based on it, and I haven't abandoned it, but mostly
>because I have real problems with predestination...

Oh, I agree that it is questionable at best.  However, my experience is that
I can have free will.  There are times I am on automatic pilot, so to speak,
but then there are other times I deliberately choose what I do; I am a verb
in life; I am an actor, not the acted upon.

Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
believe in free will... ;-)

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:13:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan5.171534.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-040193164502@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >> You can't say it's true or false, indeed.  But it's still _valid_.  To be valid
> >> logic is not the same as being true or false; valid means that the conclusion
> >> follows from the premises.
> >OK, if we can't state that a premise is true or false, how could we
> >then draw a conclusion about the logical validity of the outcome?
 
> Because "logical validity of the outcome" does not mean that the outcome is
> true or false.

OK, we have maybe a different view of the outcome, I assume this means
that the outcome from a logical truth table does not need to produce
any logical results? Or in other words, do we disagree that a logical
construct should produce an true/false conclusion, or is it OK to 
assume that the outcome could be undefined. This is maybe where we
differ -- I don't see any validity in producing a logical construction
that does not result in a clear outcome. Is this the problem I don't 
realize?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:43:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec31055202@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-301292174155@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >So are we just now agreeing on logical conclusions when we can't even
>    >agree on the premisses?
> 
>   We are not talking about the truth of conclusions, but about the logical
> validity of arguments.

Agree, and as long as we can't agree upon the validity of a premise, then
I don't see a point to agree upon a the validity of a logical construction.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : ) 
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:41:43 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.211847.28021@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan8.165146.14614@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >And, oh yes, I've figured out and have been told quite vehemently how NOT to
|> >post to the alt.atheism group.  It seems that I've riled them up quite a bit, but 
|> 
|> No, you have been asked not to preach on alt.atheism, not quite the same
|> thing.  Intelligent discourse is welcome, unsupported assertions are not.
|> --
|> Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
|> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
|> "If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

What do you talk about in alt.atheism?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: 7 NOAHIC LAWS
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:48:41 GMT

rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>I don't recall if this has ever been discussed here before, but it is
>Messianic Jews who have mentioned the concept of 7 Basic Laws intrensic
>to all peoples of all nations from which all systems of civil laws seem to
>have evolved.
...
>1.  Do NOT worship idols.
>2.  Do NOT eat meat with with blood.
...
>4.  Do NOT blaspheme.  (please clarify)

>I kinda think of these as "general morals" by which any civilization can
>live & prosper.

I kinda think of these three as oppressive, by which any civilization
can crush & dominate.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:06:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <C0EAEC.2os@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>,
 der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie) writes:
> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:

>>No, this is not correct.  In Joseph Smith's cosmology, there was
>>never a time when "our Father" did not exist.  In fact, there was
>>never a time when that intelligence we now know as Robert Weiss 
>>did not exist.
> 
> Gordon,
>   I am curious about this. Are there finite or infinite numbers of
> these spirit entities in the preexistance (an answer of 'I don't know'
> is also ok)?
> 
> 1) if infinite, what is the fate of the unborn spirits at the time of
> the second coming (and I admit, this may be meaningless under LDS
> orthodoxy). Or does LDS theology discount the Revelations prophecy?

Jumping into the thread here....

I'm not sure to what prophecy in Revelation you are referring to.
My understanding is that at the Second Coming will usher in the
Millennial Reign of Christ.  During that time, people will
continue to be born and die until the end of the Millennium,
which is when the war of Gog and Magog occurs.

In answer to your other question, I'd speculate that there is and
infinate number of intelligences that can be incarnates in
spiritual bodies and later physical bodies.

> 2) if finite, then it would seem that either a) birth would
> stop when the supply is exhausted or b) there is a implicit
> assumption of reincarnation.

There is no reincarnation in the traditional sense in LDS
concepts.  If one speculates and says that the spirit enters the
body at conception, and not at birth, then a kind of
reincarnation *may* occur if an abortion or miscarriage occurs. 
But this is *much* different from being born, living for a time
and then dieing.  The *that* case, there is no second chance to
be incarnated again, be born again, and finally die again.  The
process according to LDS is (beginning with birth): Birth ->
Mortal existance -> Death (separation of spirit and body) ->
parital judgement to assign spirit to spirit paradise or prison
while they await the resurrection -> resurrection (spirit and
body reunited in a perfect, immortal form) -> final judgement ->
final reward or punishment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:29:36 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <11050@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.071254.4440@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>>If it is His will to let a young girl die, then it is for the greater good of
>>all those involved that love Him.  I don't see why you are mad at me - I
>>didn't make it up, nor can I do a good job defending the One who calls the
>>shots.  I suggest you seek Him for your answers.  Read James 1.
>>
>  
>  If indeed your god bears any of the blame for *any* of the
>  suffering in this world, either by action or negligence, then he
>  is the most obscenely vicious criminal of them all.  Too bad we
>  can't put him on the stand in Neurenberg.

The argument cited above illustrates the existence of a logical paradox.
If our world with all the innumerable evils was created by a single
omnipotent deity, in no way can the said deity be good. Either it is
beyond good and evil, or, more likely, the Creator is a bad guy (by 
human standards). Not a nice picture, eh?

A good answer is "God is good, but this is not for you to understand, as
this is the matter of faith that cannot be treated logically."

Still I think that there is a better way out, defined with beauty and
precision by the half-forgotten Russian mystic Leonid Andreev. His idea
was that the Creator is good, but not omnipotent, and that eventually
God will reach omnipotency, but not before the world is cleansed of
all evil and all the sins are washed off from all the sinners (The Dark
Lord included). This is a concept more to my liking.

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<79251@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:29:09 UTC

In article <79251@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <fXwN2t9@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Judaism does not reject other religions or Gods. The LORD of the Hebrews
>>is the only LORD - of the *Hebrews*. Judaism is not a conversion religion
>>and there is no after death penalty or reward.
>I think the Jews did convert people - they still do today.

Yeah right. Are you talking about Jews for Jesus by any chance? There
was *one* incident of forced conversion in the entire history of Judaism
and that was in Hellenistic Jewry which was far more Hellenistic than
Jewish. You can't compare the history of Christianity and Islam to any
other religion. Forced conversion is true evil and that's an absolute
truth that escapes many Christians and Muslims, even today.

>If there is no after death penalty or reward, why did Job say that
>he would see God in his flesh?

Context?

>To you or in Judaism, is there a life after death?  

Is there a life before death?

>God is the God of the Living not of the dead.

Hold that thought.
Date: Wednesday, 6 January 1993 19:03:02 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Basics of Islam
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1993Jan5.163020.6973@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)  wrote:
# I am very interested in Islam and have two translations of the Qur'an at home
# thanks to Ahmed Abdalla (probably spelled wrong, sorry).  I haven't been
# reading them (don't be offended:  I haven't read the Bible or the newspaper
# much either) but I will this semester.  I would just like to know the basics
# of your beliefs which would help in my understanding of the Qur'an as I read.

  A bit of Jewish advice for someone setting out to study Isalm:
  Get for yourself a teacher.  Should be an Islamic center in the area.
  Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of practice more than of doctrine.
  You really need to do more than read about it to understand it.

  If you REALLY want an on-one-leg summary, the basic principle of Islam
  is in its name: "Submission to the Divine Will."  The rest (to quote
  out of context) is commentary; go and study it.  (Discalimer: I do
  not speak for Islam, and Islam does not speak for me.  I could be
  misleading you horribly, so you'll have to do your own research.)

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:26:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.031111.3890@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.053218.20356@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>> >[Someone responds to Kent:]
>>>>  [Me:]
>>>> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
>>>> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
>>>> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
>>>> then His temptation was bogus. 
>>
>>It is my understanding that "X is capable of Y" means that there are
>>circumstances under which X would do Y.  This means that God is not capable of
>>sinning.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't agree with your terms <grin>. But I think we _may_ agree
>in semantics, even if we disagree on syntax. I interpret "X is capable of Y"
>to mean that X has "attributes (as physical or mental power) required for 
>preformance of or accomplishment", and/or "traits conducive to or features 
>permitting", and/or "general efficiency and ability" [quotes from Webster's
>Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary - not the OED, but more readily available]. 
>
>My understanding is that a being which is omnipotent is capable of [has the
>required attributes & features which are required to do] *ANYTHING*.
>
>Therefore my understanding is that God *can* do anything. What God actually 
>*chooses* to do is independent from what he *can* do.
>
>IE, I don't believe that God can't sin; I believe that he *WON'T*. By choice.

You realize the consequences of this, when taken to its logical conclusion,
don't you?

Briefly, the end result is that everything is the way God wants it to be.
This includes the state of man, the existence of suffering, etc.  All of
this follows from omnipotence + omniscience, which effectively means that
God makes no mistakes in planning (omniscience) and no mistakes in
execution (omnipotence).

Of course, omnipotence effectively implies also that indirection with respect
to achieving goals is unnecessary.  If God wants something, God can get that
something directly (if you wish to restrict the definition of ommipotence to
something that makes sense, I think the minimum restriction necessary is that
God cannot do something that breaks a definition, which means that in the case
of two or more mutually exclusive alternatives, God gets only one of them).
This also has some rather nasty implications for most Christians, namely that
Jesus was totally unnecessary for the salvation of mankind.  If God wanted
man to be "saved", God would have set things up such that it would never be
necessary to begin with.

>-jen


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan6022217@bast.sics.se>
	<ksand-060193103524@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:52:24 GMT

In article <ksand-060193103524@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >Sorry, but I really considered them,  and that was the reason I posted

  Putting your peculiar babbling in this article to one side, could you
perhaps explain what, if anything, you believe is meant by a logically
valid argument?
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/8/93   God's Promise in Titus 1:2
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:45:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	In hope of eternal life,
	which God, that cannot lie,
	promised before the world began;

	Titus 1:2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:48:36 GMT

In <5949@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.214026.1249@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
>>The answer to our troubles are in God only!!!  

>Yes, She and the Earth Life Force certainly provide a way for all to live
>in harmony.

 As the bumper sticker said "God is coming again, and boy is She pissed off"

>Followups to talk.religion.misc.

>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
(Condolances)

REB
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: test
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:13:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: o233-29.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Keywords: test

test
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc