HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Absolute Right and Wrong 
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:26:46 GMT


>>(John Emery) makes the case for universal morality:
>>
>> The point I would like to contribute to this discussion is that there
>> must be an underlying principle other than tolerance by which one is
>> judged.  Tolerance is neutral.  There are always things that each
...
>> is both tolerant and intolerant.  However, it is the underlying 
>> principle of absolute right and wrong that is the issue.  Finding and

(Steve Boylan) writes:
>What bothers me here is the idea that there is an "absolute truth", or
>"absolute right and wrong".
>
>Is there any such thing?

Suppose there are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe in 
absolute truths, and those who do not. If this is the case, then there
will never be agreement. If there is no agreement, then we will never
be a "unified world", instead always a pluralistic one -- I happen to
think that that is a good thing -- It keeps us on our toes.

>At the risk of re-igniting a previous flame war, let me recall a
>discussion a few months back from alt.pagan - is killing another
>person wrong?

Bringing up specific examples as you do here only goes to show
that there will always be disagreement about whether a particular
thing (in your example killing/murder), proves or disproves the
need for a universal absolute morality. 

This is essence, means that merely bringing up an issue: murder/abortion/
you-name-it is an example of how futile it is to try and establish
a universal absolute morality for all.

This is not to say however, that in our public lives, we do not
need to discuss these things and do what we believe is imperative.

Dano


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Truth in topic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:35:11 GMT


It WOULD be nice to see some discussion of other religions on
this group.  I for one am very curious about the modern practices
of many of the great religions.  

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:44:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.211045.18408@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.083116.9474@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>>>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>>>>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!

In other words the awsumnist of the Lord is so great that our knowledge
of him/her pales significantly in comparison.....


>>>>>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>>>>>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.

>>>>jThose are just parts of God, not his/her whole!  And it irritaites me
>>>>that fundementalist really humanize God.  God ain't human, sonny....
>>>>...
>>>>It amazes me still that you really think you, a mere person, know
>>>>all of God.....kind of trivializes God, doesn't it?
>>>So?
>>My point is that most of the fundie movement is composed of a group of
>>people who worship a book.  A group of people who worship a humanbeing
>>somewhere out there in the universe.  My contention is, that this
>>isn't Christianity.....
>
>You weren't talking about fundies, you were talking about me.  You said that
>nobody can know God at all; 


Wrong!  I said nobody can know "all of God"....Big difference, sir....

>when I disagreed, you immediately said that I'm
>claiming to know everything about God.
>
>There's a big gap between "something" and "everything".  If I start drawing
>conclusions from the little bits of information you do let out about God, you
>have no business telling me I shouldn't do so because I "can't know God"; why
>did you then say he's good, etc. in the first place?


Folks,  Fundies pride themselves in the literal interpretation of the Bible..
There is a huge difference between knowing all of God, which is what
I said, and not knowing God, which is what he thought I said.  I was talking
about how magnificant and awsume God is.......

This person has misread (which I find so strange for a literalist
bookworshiper, and I must take note at this point that this person has
yet talked about the Greatness of our Lord......which is the whole
reason for my posting.  Note the difference.  I try to discuss the 
glory of the Lord, which is quite often missing from the discussions
in this group, and he goes on arguing about something he misread....
A true sign of the anti-Christ movement....

>--
>"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:11:14 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Dale Skiba writes, in part, in response to Peter White,

>Even minor errors like the Judas contradictions (does it really
>matter all that much how Judas died) show that this ABSOLUTE
>DIVINE INSPIRATION is bogus.  At first, I was really disapointed
>that there were more than a few of these minor errors.  But, maybe
>it is better this way.  If every word was absolutely perfect, we
>would never have to think and then our cranial capacity would be
>totally wasted :-)

Matthew and Luke both give sketchy details of the fate of Judas, 
hardly enough to determine whether they are in conflict, not
with each other, but with what really happened.  Nothing is
proved either way.

But friends (especially my evangelical friends), why is it that 
the idea of a divinely inspired Bible requires absolutely that 
there be no error in detail or no mistranscription in it?  However 
inspired the writers were, they had to write down their inspiration
in human language and in physical media, which in turn had to be 
copied and translated by human beings on physical media.

This inerrancy doctrine, which may have been useful centuries ago
to keep people's attention focused on the text, is in our time
demeaning to the real depth and magnitude of the scriptures. Yes,
very often an apparent inconsistency turns out not to be an error,
but to be the touchstone for a new revelation on a deeper level
(such as the problem of the two genealogies of Jesus, which I
wrote about in a thread some time ago).  And it is true, that if
one concedes the possibility that there may be an error in the
text, it makes it more difficult to discern which puzzling statement
is accurate and which is not.  But the value and truth of the
Bible should not rest on the trivial question of whether or not
the text contains an error.  Believers who insist on carrying on
this debate put roadblocks in front of inquiring skeptics who
might be open if it were not for this medieval nitpicking over
fine points.

IMHO (which does not sound very H, does it?)

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.051941.20440@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.055933.7571@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>As far as I can tell, most of them [atheistic barbaric destroyers]
>>weren't atheists at all. Can you
>>come up with a single example besides communists?
>Let's depart from generalizations of people groups and focus on individuals.
>Who were those guys beating Rodney King?  Who were those guys beating the
>truck driver during the LA riots?
Lesse...The people beating up on Rodney King were members of the LAPD.
The guys beating up on the truck driver were certain private citizens
unknown to me. What makes you think that any of them were atheists?
If not, what is the relevance of this?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:36:00 GMT

In article <HqcFuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> Chicken! Bwak, bwak, bwak! Amazing cackling hens! The sky is falling!

	Truly pathetic.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Answering: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:22:32 GMT

ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:

] Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
] The reason I ask, it has occurred to me that there could be a secret society
] serving the functions of a denomination among these people.  Otherwise, how do
] we account for the great uniformity of teachings among them?  Who decides what
] publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  Who decides what religious
] denominations will be persecuted as "cults?"  Why do so many fundamentalists
] themselves manifest the same zeal or fanaticism they fault others for?  Could
] these people be dupes of some secret "church?"
] 
] Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 


Try to remember that 'piety' is an irregular verb:

"We are Orthodox."

"You are Tredding the Fine Line."

"They are the SpawnsOfSatan!"

Also Note, that once one has SLIPPED Away from the ONE TRUE FAITH
does it matter what collection of Doctrinal Errors One holds as
the center piece of one's SATANIC KULT RITUALS?????


ciao
drieux


ps: the easiest place to start is whether or NOT they accept
that the GREAT SATAN Has Waged WAR with GOD in the USA at least
since the time that the USA Outlawed the God Given Right to SLAVES!

pps: THEY ARE CLEARLY A PART OF THE SATANIC KULT IF THEY ANSWER WRONGLY!!!!




-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov16.143234.6350@newstand.syr.edu> 
	<1992Nov16.164411.7165@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 02:25:22 UTC

In article <1992Nov16.164411.7165@newstand.syr.edu> 
dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>If the Bible or whatever religious text was supposed to be
>interpreted differently from what the words literally sa wouldn't
>the author(s) have included that vital fact in the book?

No. Actually, it would be the other way around and would be a sign of
*extreme* dogmaticism. For example, what is the literal interpretation
of Luke14:26?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:15:57 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Richard Pitt has recently and repeatedly reinforced the importance of
"organized, voluntary" prayer in schools.  For instance Richard Pitts says:

> It is legal, but the desire is for an organized voluntary period of
> prayer.  The idea is that we believe that prayer is important and should
> be a recognized part of national life.  You will have the opportunity
> to not pray, just as you don't pray now.  I don't know if this is part of 
> it, but maybe there should be a place to assemble for those who want to 
> pray, as opposed to a set period of time IN a classroom.  

and

> However, as I've said before, I believe the movement wants to publically
> allow/recognized the IMPORTANCE OF PRAYER in our public institutions.

Mr Pitts complains that the laws we presently have do not suffice for his
needs, and has made it quite clear that he is not satisfied with the present
ability of any child to pray in school.  He thereby proposes organized
"voluntary" prayer initiated in school.  Now he does suggest that that there
could be an assembly for those who want to pray, but that proposal is already
legal, as the courts have already ruled that one cannot forbid the formation
of "Christian clubs", which join in organized prayer after school or on the
students personal time.  Such clubs could no doubt pray during lunch time as
well.  So I have to wonder at Mr Pitts repeated assertion that we need to have
laws mandating such organized prayer in the present school system.  I also
have to wonder at the specific benefits of a law which mandates that public
funds to pay for private faith. 

So Mr Pitts, since you emphasize the "IMPORTANCE OF PRAYER in our public
institutions," perhaps you could tell us *WHY* it is important.  What are the
specific benefits you see for the mandating of organized prayer in the school?
How do these benefits justify the taxes which we will pay to support such
organized prayer? How will laws which mandate school prayer be an improvement
over private prayer presently allowed, or the organized prayer presented by
Christian clubs, which are also already allowed?
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

        "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good
     works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping,
     sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries
     and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of
     pleasing the Deity."
				Benjamin Franklin
				Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:13:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.204437.27662@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?

Well, Canaanite children, children in Sodom, etc.
--
"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)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21397 talk.abortion:48432 alt.atheism:21534
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:09:20 GMT

In article <adams.722285086@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <adams.722275016@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Take it up with God! ;-)
>>While I agree that the scenario itself is bogus, I'm quite serious.
>>What happens if if my idea of how heaven should be is incompatible
>>with someone else's idea?
>Two possibilities, as I see it.
>
>  1) It doesn't matter, you get what God gives you and you *WILL* be happy.
>
>  2) God has constructed heaven in such a way that you will be given that
>     which makes you the most happy.
>For some reason, I expect you to object to idea 1....;-)
You're right. I do. my desires are part of my identity. If God takes
them away, he's generated someone like me but not me. That's not
my idea of ME being saved.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: non-Christian Religions, was Truth in topic
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<ksand-211192125210@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:32:24 UTC

In article <ksand-211192125210@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.184129.11977@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
>> It is very interesting to scan through all the topics addressed on
>> this group (misc. religious) and note that overall Christianity in
>> its various forms is discussed much more than anything else.
>> Could this qualify it as a "best bet"?
>Actually, I would like to see more discussion about non-Christian
>religions on t.r.m -- I agree that this newsgroup is artificially
>too much biased towards Christianity. There are many other religions
>in the world.

What kind of topics would you like to see discussed? Why don't you post
your questions and see what people answer? You know, there are some who
say that the best teachers speak only questions and the best students speak
with only answers. So, what's holding you back teach?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: RE: Reconciling OT to NT
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:53:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Grass Valley Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

>In article <1992Nov17.173850.14175@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank 
>O'Dwyer) writes:
>One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
>Christianity.
 
...stuff deleted...
 
>If someone points out that OT actions seems to show God not acting good, and
>you reconcile the OT and NT gods like you do light as particles/waves, you
>would be saying "God acts good sometimes and acts non-good sometimes".  I have
>not yet seen a theist claim this.
> --
>"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)


Ken, if you could give a few specific examples from the Bible, I would be
glad to respond with some reasonable explanations as to how the OT and NT
are completely consistent. 

In actuality, the OT and the new are intertwined like ivy around a trellis.
In the NT, we see hundreds of old testament prophecies fulfilled, and we
see Jesus say to His disciples, "If you love me, you will keep my
commandments." And at various points in the NT, Jesus affirms all of the
ten commandments of the OT. Further, Jesus himself, when he died on
the>cross to pay the penalty for your sin and mine, represented and
replaced
the OT Passover sacrifice of a lamb with a final NT sacrifice of His own
body and blood, which we continue to remember symbolically today when we
take communion. And communion itself is a continual fulfillment of God's OT
command to observe the Passover as a sacrament forever... I could go on ad
infinitum.

If you really want to get into specifics rather than making false general
statements, I would be glad to discuss it here. Perhaps you would even
consider reading the Bible yourself in order to verify your statements and
mine?

Chuck Petch
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS (Farkas) bashing/ Paul's vision/ prophets/ equivocating
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:35:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Tony Rose makes this statement serveral times:
>
>>Are you sure that you are a Mormon?  Because the LDS church doesn't
>>teach that Jesus is God the Father.  

The fact of the matter is that Tony has consistantly twisted what
the LDS believe about the difference and similarities of God the
Father and God the Son.  Whether he does so intentionally or
ignorantly I don't know but the more he carries on in this way the
more he appears to be doing so intentionally.  I, as a LDS who
professes to know something about LDS teachings, would like to say
that everything Frank has said so far on the topic is faithful to
the teachings I am familiar with from the LDS church.  Tony Rose is
the one who needs to ask himself, "Are you sure you know what a
Mormon is?"

Sincerely,

Robert
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<92315.103940RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
	<1992Nov10.223637.1724@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Nov13.005750.13489@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:26:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.005750.13489@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

   />But, if Jesus was the son of
   />God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
   />since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?

   /(lungtt)
   /No record?  One of the Gospels reports of Jesus addressing God in Aramaic
   /kind of as "Daddy" not just "Father" in that spot where he says "Father,
   /why have you forsaken me?"

   Wrong.  Dead wrong.  In fact, embarassingly wrong.  You don't even 
   know your own bible, Terence.

   The quotation you are referring to is "Eli, eli lama sabachthani?", which
   translates, "MY GOD, MY GOD, why hast thou forsaken me?"	
-------
Excuse me, but I must butt in.  Eh-hem.  Mark 14:36, at Gethsemane
Jesus said, "ABBA, Father, all things are possible for you; take away this
cup from me: nevertheless, not what I want, but what you want."
"Abba" is recorded as the actual word He used.  Hence, the repetition of
the Greek to explain that Aramaic Abba meant father (Dad[dy]).
Think about it: "Abba, Father..."

BTW, stop pickin' on Terence... :)



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc