HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:48:17 GMT
 <92241.190933EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <!fgnkam@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

nnget


In article <!fgnkam@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) says:
>
>I'm not sure at what you're getting.
>
>You seem to be equating "coming back to the same point" as including
>the same time at which you started.  If we are merely concerned with
>spatial co-ordinates, then the only thing the time co-ordinate would
>have to do with it is if when it changes, the spatial co-oridnates
>also change.

I was reponding to a letter regarding whether or not a "Big Crunch" senario
would imply an infinite universe.  I was trying to show that ths senario could
mean an infinite universe, depending on your definition of "infinite."

<TACHYON>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cram@engr.latech.edu (Ramesh Chellaton)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previ
Reply-To: cram@engr.latech.edu
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:44:24 GMT

Speaking of which, I have a theory.

The conception of Jesus Christ was probably attributed to 'God', because
the people there could not trace the real father.

In Hindu mythology, there are several such instances, where births are attributed
to such varied abstractions as the wind, the sun, the moon, fire, water. Well, any
damn thing.

Moral :  To be a 'Son of God', one needs to be a real 'I don't know my Pop' types.

Bless Ya.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Subject: Re: I was wondering
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:08:25 GMT

In article <92239.221620EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> with.  Did any one (from any Judeo-Christian background) ever really  
look at
> their prayers while reading them?  They basically consist of putting  
yourself a
> nd other humans down lower than dirt, while putting this "God" up on a  
pedistal
>  and saying how great he/she/it (I can't make up my mind) is.

   I really don't think those prayers are meant for the ears of a god so  
much as to review the theology of the religion. Here is an example: my  
father wass talking about the Lord's Prayer at the dinner table oner day  
and questioned the line *lead us not into temptation*. Why would an  
infinitly good god want to lead its followers into temptation? I think  
that line is there just to remind people that god won't lead them into  
evil, a kety point in christian belief. In fact I've noticed most prayers  
are just theology lessons for believers. As my parish priest once said  
*God already knows itself and doesn't need us to tell it how it is*.

-----
Vince
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:27:20 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <92238.165251A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET>,
 A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET (Jacqueline Cote) writes:
> A few weeks ago there was an article in a local newspaper that an Australian
> scientist (I forgot her name), who had studied (part of) the Scrolls claims
  ^^^^^^^^^
> that they state that Jesus *did not* die after his crucifiction, was revived
> with mirre and some other substance, and continued to live for another
> 30 years, travelling around and telling people about his visions. He married
> Mary Magdelen and had three children with her, two sons and a daughter.
> After the birth of his second son, he apparently left her to marry a Greek
> female bishop (?????).
>
> Does anyone else have heard this story? If it *would* be true, it would
> have spectacular implications and it would also shed light why little
> to nothing is known to the world about the contents of the Scrolls.....
>
> The story reminded me of another story I once read *years* ago, about
> one of the 'secrets' of the Vatican. That story claimed that there was
> evidence (in some convent in France) that indeed Mary and Jesus were a
> couple (after his 'death') travelling around and visiting places.
>
> Comments, anyone?
>
> Jacqueline

This sounds to me like a report relating to Barbara Thiering's ideas
and her book "Jesus the Man".  she is not a scientist, she is a
theologian.  It seems to be quite popular to believe that there is
a conspiracy surrounding the Scrolls because they contain "damning
evidence" against Christianity and Judaism.  I cannot assert that
this is not the case but I have heard anecdotal evidence that such
a belief is largely unfounded.  (Perhaps Tim O'Neill could help
here??)  Thiering's contention is that if you assume the NT was
written by the Qumran community (an assumption she justifies with
a revised dating of the scrolls and a few "key phrases") then it
is actually a code which she claims to have "broken" and thus out
pops the story you mention above.

Several subsequent posters have suggested that this scenario sounds
more believeable than traditional Christianity, I beg to differ.
In its infancy the church was not the powerful coercer it became in
the Dark and Middle Ages and its rapid spread is testimony to the
dedication of its early members.  I know you've probably heard this
sort of thing before but it seems more plausible to me that Jesus
died (assuming he existed of course) and that his followers had
some subsequent experience (imagined or "real") which lead to their
dedication than a still alive Jesus hovering in the background
while all the time his followers are preaching "the crucified and
risen Christ".

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
From: sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (BORCO)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:38:34 -0500
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Gormenghast

In article <j1moody-010992233350@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>,
j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

[vomit deleted]

Ah, and I see theism has tempered your personality so well.  So all I
have to do is believe in a god like you do and I can be crude to others
as well?


----
Bitnet:     sjs@ifasgnv              "Precious and fish are the moments we
Internet:   sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu      two can share."          -- Gollum
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did the world end already?
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:32:42 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <Aug.29.01.19.30.1992.1270@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
> 
>>	Could some knowledgeable person tell how Christians explain the
>>various NT passages where Jesus claims that the end is IMMINENT, and that
>>some of his disciples would live to see it?  I can't provide a verse 
>>reference, but I believe the Gospels make this claim more than once.
>>	Seems kind of hard to reconcile this sort of statement to our
>>continued existence here.  Hey, maybe the world did end already, and
>>we've all apparently wound up in hell! :-)
> 
> I suspect you're thinking of a single statement, which appears in all
> three synoptics, Mat 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27. 
>                                                  

Okay, but it's harder to tapdance around the other three times
the disciples ask when the End is coming, the most damning of
which is Luke 21:32: "...this generation will not pass away till
all things have been accomplished."  The other two guys (Mathew
and Mark) say "all these things," which could lead to double
interpretations.  But *all things* could refer only to the end of
the world, and that is supported by the fact that the disciples
asked  him point-blank "When are these things to happen?" (Luke
21:7) after Jesus told them about how Jerusalem would be
destroyed.  Many apologists claim that these passages speak only
about the destruction of Jerusalem, but that catastrophe and the
Ultimate End of the World are clearly related, and it seems
certain that the earliest Christians thought the fall of
Jerusalem would mark the end (hence all the talk of the New
Jerusalem).  In fact, my Catholic Bible adds the heading
"Destruction of Jerusalem and End of the World" just before this
section (Luke 21:5).  Conclusions:  Jesus (if he existed) and his
followers thought the end "must shortly come to pass" (Apocalypse
1:1); they were wrong; ergo Christianity is wrong; ergo anyone
who believes in it is a complete idiot.

Don't be an idiot.

By the by, there's a compelling article in the new issue of
American Atheist detailing how Jesus came to be invented in
response to astrological calculations derived from the Mithra
religion.  It's much more believable than virgin births and
rising from the dead and three (count 'em) three gods in one.

Don
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Some William Blake 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:38:27 GMT

Here is an interesting essay I found while reading
     a book containing poems and writings of the
     British author William Blake.  It comes from
     his rather satirical and highly symbolic
     _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_.  It's called...
     
                *********************
                * A Memorable Fancy *
                *********************

     Once I saw a Devil in a flame of fire, who arose
before an Angel that sat on a cloud, and the Devil
utter'd these words:

     "The worship of God is: Honouring his gifts in other
men, each according to his genius, and loving the 
greatest men best: those who envy or calumniate great 
men hate God; for there is no other God."

     The Angel hearing this became almost blue; but
mastering himself he grew yellow, & at last white,
pink, & smiling, and then replied:

     "Thou Idolater! is not God One? & is not he visible
in Jesus Christ? and has not Jesus Christ given his 
sanction to the law of ten commandments? and are 
not all other men fools, sinners, & nothings?"

     The Devil answer'd: "bray a fool in a morter with
wheat, yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him; if
Jesus Christ is the greatest man, you ought to love
him in the greatest degree; now hear how he has given
his sanction to the law of the ten commandments: did he 
not mock at the sabbath and so mock the sabbath's 
God? murder those who were murder'd because of
him? turn away the law from the woman taken in 
adultery? steal the labor of others to support him?
bear false witness when he omitted making a defence
before Pilate? covet when he pray'd for his disciples,
and when he bid them shake off the dustof their feet
against such as refused to lodge them? I tell you, no
virtue can exist without breaking these ten command-
ments.  Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse,
not from rules."

     When he had so spoken, I beheld the Angel, who 
stretched out his arms, embracing the flame of fire, &
he was consumed and arose as Elijah.

     Note: This Angel, who is now become a Devil, is 
my particular friend; we often read the Bible together
in its infernal or diabolical sense, which the world shall
have if they behave well.

     I have also The Bible of Hell, which the world shall
have whether they will or no.


One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression.


Stephen @Trajan
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:14:34 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <714947054.2915@minster.york.ac.uk> cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>
>joyce@meaddata.com wrote:
>
>: The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of
>
>Jesus made no distinct claim to be God. There as places (most notably
>the confession of Thomas in John's gospel) where he misses the chance
>to deny that he is God, but his own distinct and explicit claims as
>recorded in the gospels consistently make him subordinate to God.

In service of my curiosity about this point, I asked a Christian friend
for examples of passages he takes to be distinct claims to divinity
by Jesus. He provided the following, and promised more, given a day
or two to research.

I promised him that I would summarize (worthwhile) responses for
him.

The purported claims of divinity by Jesus:

>From the gospel of John, chapter 8:

     "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
     At this, they picked up stones to stone him.

The reason they were going to stone him, is that "I am" is the way God
characterized himself to Moses, and every Jew knew that claim well.


>From John 10:

     "I and the Father are one."  Again the Jews picked up stones to
     stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great
     miracles from the Father.  For which of these do you stone me?"
     "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews,
     "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

>From John 17:

    "Father, the time has come.  Glorify your Son, that your Son may
    glorify you.  For you granted him authority over all people that
    he might give eternal life to all those you have given him."

and later:

    "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I
    had with you before the world began."

When he appeared to Thomas:  (John 20)

    "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"  Then Jesus told him,
    "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those
    who have not seen and yet have believed."
From: fahole@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God posts again AND, Proof colleen wrote the bible
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:50:10 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Aug31.140740.777@ccs.QueensU.CA>, 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter)) writes:
> In article <BtM35s.L7y@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug24.125646.305@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug24.171141.22562@ccs.QueensU.CA>, 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter)) writes:
>> >> There is no God but Colleen.I'd 
>> >> really like to see someone prove
>> >> me wrong.
>> >
>> >In your case, Colleen, the following quote is apropos.
>> >
>> >"Never argue with a fool.  The fool will not benefit,
>> >and other people may not be able to tell the difference."
>> >                                     -Mark Twain
>> 
>> A wise person calls a fool a fool, and a fool calls a wise person a
>> fool.  Thus, when one person calls another a fool nothing is revealed
>> about which one is, in fact, the fool.
>> 
>> The wisdom of Colleen appears as folly to the "wise" people of the
>> false religions.
>> 
>> This idea is so stupid that it must be true.
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Canzi
>> 
> Dave is the Second Disciple and Prophet.
> 
> colleen

Wait!   'colleen' has seven letters. Including 2 sets of double letters.
2*2=4*the 2 remaining consonants=8-the 1 remaining vowell=SEVEN
Once again we see the wisdom of our god colleen.
-- 
David Hole                  FAHOLE@USU
Utah State University       FAHOLE@CC.USU.EDU
Logan, UT                   Just say snow!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:03:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.185419.22227@meaddata.com>, joyce@meaddata.com writes:

> Jesus claimed to be God. 

We don't need to go any further than this unsubstantiated assertion. As has 
been argued at great length on talk.religion.misc lately, many of the later
works in the New Testament have Jesus saying things which seem to indicate
a belief on the part of his followers that he was an incarnation of Yahweh.
However, if you look at the *early* texts, especially the synoptic gospels
how many such texts will you find? None. The fact that the earlest writings 
of christianity give no indication that the earliest christians believed he
was God incarnate should give you pause (though there is good evidence that
they thought he was the messiah which is NOT the same thing amongst first 
century jews). 

The only reasonable conclusion is that after his execution 
his followers decided that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yusef rather) was the jewish
messiah and that he would be returning to earth in glory with the coming
of the Kingship of God (basilias ton theo). This jewish concept caught on
amongst gentiles, many of whom thought nothing of interpreting the messianic
title 'son of God' as meaning that Jesus was in some sense Yahweh's literal
son, and thereofore divine like certain Graeco-roman figures (eg Hercules)
Thus Jesus went from jewish faith-healer to jewish messiah to God himself.
As a result we find no references to his supposed divinity in the gospels
of Mark, Matthew or Luke. They don't show up in any form until the gospel
of John, the latest of the gospels.
Don't believe me? Then try to post a reference to Jesus' divinity from
the three synoptic gospels.
Tim O'Neill
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16378 talk.origins:10672
From: jhi@vipunen.hut.fi (Jarkko Hietaniemi)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<STDKAP1.92Aug29160913@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep1.094550.1189@walter.cray.com>
	<RLK.92Sep1115516@underprize.think.com>
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:27:17


>   Naah, just catch the signals and ignore them!  Unix even has undead
>   processes...

> Reminds me of the story of someone wearing an old Unix T-shirt in a bar
> in Texas.  Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the story...

If someone has a copy of that story, I'd like to see it too.
I had it but it got lost in some frenzy of cleaning up the disk...

++jhi;

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Sep1134136@isis.sics.se> <hjmn=cl@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:23:57 GMT

In article <hjmn=cl@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

   >Thus, it does provide a counter-example to the FAQ which states that
   >the undecidability of a statement is, in itself, undecidable.

  You're going in circles. Permit me to quote an earlier posting of
yours, in reply to my pointing out that what the FAQ entry states
is that it is undecidable "in the formal system" whether an undecidable
statement is undecidable:

   >Incorrect.  It is quite decidable "in the formal system" whether an
   >undecidable statement A is undecidable.

  So let me repeat once more. It is not provable in ZFC that the
continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC. This is a consequence of
Godel's second incompleteness theorem. Assuming, of course, the
consistency of ZFC.

   I await with interest any further attempt on your side to avoid grasping
this simple point.

   Your remaining comments are irrelevant to the point at issue.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:07:22 GMT

In article <92238.152617EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>, <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|>According to the Bing Bang theory, there are three possible  "futures"
for this
|> universe of ours.  Assuming that enough mass exists in the universe
and a big
|>Crunch results (I personally would like to believe that this senario
will occur
|>), space would be in a sense, infinite.  Consider this: you draw dots
on the su
|>rface of a balloon.  Each of those dots represents a galaxy (or a
cluster or su
|>per-cluster: irrelevent).  As you inflate the balloon the space
between the bal
|>loons expands.  If you start at one point and begin moving in a
straight line (
|> which in this case would be restricted to the surface of the balloon,
so it wo
|>uld actually be a curved line which would be the shortest distance
between two
|>points: non-euclidean geometry), you would go on forever, hence
infinity.  Now
|>just imagine that on a three dimensional scale. (good luck)
|>:)
            
I think you have it reversed: a closed universe is the ONLY (of the three,
open-flat-closed) universe that is finite!  The balloon analogy shows that
(if you follow the line, you end up where you started!  A circle of finite 
radius. Just as the balloon has finite surface area, the universe would 
have finite volume.)
Try this out in one of the science news groups:-)

PS Read Steven Hawking's stuff, too.  Cool theories!

Brian /-|-\
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 17:55:44 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu


In article <1992Aug31.113929.24152@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>Is atheism experimentally refutable?
>I suspect that atheism is not experimentally refutable, and therefore must
>be classed as a religion or faith, which is surprising.  ...

It seems to me that neither atheism or theism can be considered experimentally
refutable.  If there is a God, then he, being omnipotent and a pain in the
ass, could alter our experimental results any way he pleases without any of
us being the wiser.  Thus, any experiment which refuted theism could just be
God trying to throw us a curve.

Similarly, an experiment which refuted atheism (i.e. demonstrated the existence
of a God) might be the work of some minor demi-god, powerful enough to confuse
humans, but not being what we mean by "God".

Personally, I think one of the worst problems with theism is that any
evidence you present against it is dismissed as (a) the work of Satan, or
(b) God trying to test your faith.  With this sort of logic, theism is in
principle irrefutable (which is NOT the same thing as being true!)

-Scott Oser
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:10:18 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <dabrowsk.714862129@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> 
> Now, I apply exactly the same procedure to my investigation: I feel that
> the omnipotence of God should not be limited (subjective introspection).
> This tells me that God should be ABLE to know all future free actions,
> not HAVE to know all future free actions, because the later version of 
> the attribute of omniscience 1) limits God by removing his freedom of
> choice and 2) causes the 'problem of evil' paradox. I accept the 'able'
> version of omniscience because an able-omniscient being APPEARS the same
> as a must-omniscient being. The diference is in LOGICAL CONSISTENCE.
> 

This is a nice attempt to resolve this sticky issue - I only see one
difficulty. "Omniscience" means "knowing all," not "able to know all." 
That might be "omni-intelligence."   A God who is only ABLE to know might
not actually KNOW everything. He might not know, for example, that he is 
only a sub-God of another bigger God, never having bothered to find this out.
This takes away God's authority. He might not know any more than we do, you
see, if he is only "able to know everything." This effectively destroys 
Christianity, which rests on the assumption that God knows best. 

This is one of the nicest and most original attempts to solve the problem of
evil I have seen. It is the second nifty try by Jarek to rescue God from the
problem of evil (that I have seen). 

However, it seems to me that Christian doctrine really is
trying to do the equivalent of creating a "square circle." A loving,
onmipotent, omniscient God who creates beings that will damn themselves to Hell
is an internally inconsistent logical construct. 

Jarek's attempts to rescue God from this problem only succeed by also rescuing
him from Christianity. Maybe Jarek should start his own chur? ? I like 
the "Jarekian" heresy better than I like Pauline orthodoxy!


Cheers,
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca