HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:07:25 GMT

In article <25AUG199211121196@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.222409.7629@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>>What do you mean by "morally permissible"?
>
>Permitted by moral standards.  Morally right and good.  Not wrong.

Nice dictionary definition.  Next time a student is asked to write
a paper on the meaning of Truth, I suppose they will get an A+ for
the dictionary definition. :)

>
>Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
>creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
>intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
>of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intelligent
>life created in the latter manner has autonomy?
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

The reason I asked the question is because I believe we have to have the
same definitions of what we mean by "morally permissible".  Otherwise, we
will see things totally different.  But I will try...

If I "create" something such as life by merely using nature's
tools such as donating a sperm in order to fertilize an egg, then
I would argue that it would not be morally permissible for me to
destroy it because I only was a cooperating agent in its creation.
It exists as a free seperate entity, not owned by me.  On the
other hand, If I created it out of nothing (an attribute only
attributed to God) then it would not only be permissible for me to
kill it physically, but to destroy it totally (for those who
believe in the non-physical component of humans).  The fact that
God has been known to do the former, but not the latter is an
attribute of his infinite love for us, not some moral code of
behaviour.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:03:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.132553.22606@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>>>It also
>>>>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>>>>to bring about the destruction of the planet.  
>
>>>Huh?  In what way is Christianity or Islam or Judasim "destroying the
>>>planet"?
>
>[Mr. Graham]
>>Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>>of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>>planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>>could manage it in a humane manner.
>
>Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
>planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
>will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
>exist regardless of the actions of humans.

I believe the term you're looking for is "hyperbole", which is
consistent with the satiric construction of the sentence ("It also
seems to be a tenet...").  Even the worst scenarios of nuclear war are
unlikely to literally destroy the planet.  Nevertheless, policies that
lead to overpopulation tend toward metaphorical destruction of the
planet from a human perspective.

>>How do you suppose that opposition
>>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>
>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>control population as well as anything mentioned above.

Not at all.  To the best of my knowledge, most of the children born in
parts of the world suffering from overpopulation are born within
wedlock, and most of the groups with the attitudes Doug cites do not
advocate continence within marriage, often quite the opposite.
Certainly successful advocacy of complete sexual continence for all
would indeed lead to a reduced population, but short of the Shakers I
haven't heard that being preached lately.

>--
>Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
>Please send a copy of your response to g-skinner@uiuc.edu, as my
>newsfeed will unreliable for a short time.

OK

-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:41:17 GMT


In article <6661@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
[about the JW redefinition of "pestilence"]

|I've posed this problem of how the WTBTS misleads its readers to
|several JWs, whose only response has been "I'll get back to you".
|This is how they refuse to think critically.
|Care to prove me wrong?

Five days and no response.  Hmm.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother attempting to get through to
JWs.  Superstitions & delusions like theirs are mostly harmless,
after all.  What does it matter if some people believe silly
things about the origin of life, about Bible translations, or
about selling magazines door-to-door?  Or so I ask myself after
a particularly fruitless attempt to get a JW to stop
double-thinking.

I guess I bother for two reasons:

- To see something so manifestly false boastfully labelling
  itself as "the Truth" offends me.
- Some people *do* get hurt by the JWs.  People are misled by
  the vicious practice of disfellowshipping into disowning their
  families.  And more seriously, people die because they are
  misled into refusing blood transfusions.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com     C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The united voices of millions cannot lend the smallest 
foundation to falsehood."  --Oliver Goldsmith.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:37:24 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <adams.715618666@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>the Trinity assigns male anothropomorphisms to the 'Father' and 'Son', the
>Holy Spirit is arguably female*...;-)  "Wisdom/Sophia"....
>
>* Nicene Creed notwithstanding.  I'm referring to the OT references...

I assume you are saying the the OT references the Holy Spirit as
feminine in nature.  If not please clarify.

Also, could you cite and/or quote some of these OT references.
The NT refers to the Holy Spirit as a He.

> -Steve

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

   Psa 68:4   Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the
      clouds -- his name is the LORD-- and rejoice before him.
   Psa 68:5   A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his
      holy dwelling.

   Psa 89:26   He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my
      Savior.'

   Psa 103:13   As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has
      compassion on those who fear him;
   Psa 103:14   for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

   Isa 63:16   But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or
      Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of
      old is your name.

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:04:26 GMT

skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: >I am investigating moderate Christianity in another thread, but I
: >have some more questions.  (unrelated to one another)
: 
: Whether I am moderate I don't know, and I cannot speak for other
: moderates, but I can speak for myself.
: >1) If the Fall is mythical, there is no historical basis for Original
: >Sin.  How does moderate Christianity justify the doctrine of
: >Original Sin?
: 
: I think the Fall is probably mythical.  I do not see any basis for the
: doctrine of Original Sin.

I can't remember if I got this same reply earlier here or via email.
Since I haven't seen a reply yet, I will risk repeating it.  Orig.Sin.
places the blame for the world's woes directly on us.  Lack of OS places
the blame directly on God since he created the world such that
evil was unavoidable.  What does this say about the justness of God?

: >2) The founding fathers were quite vocal about preventing religion (vis.
: >Christianity) from interfering with the government.
: 
: (Aside: Though this was certainly important, their aim may also have
: been to keep government from interfering with religion.  Many early
: colonists came to North America to escape religious persecution by
: governments.  Separation of church and state is advantageous to both
: the church and the state.)

Reading their quotes, mutual protection is definately indicated.
I didn't really intend to imply otherwise.

: >  Do you believe
: >that Christianity has cleaned up its act enough to be given a second
: >chance (especially considering the fundamentalists seem to be in the
: >vanguard of such efforts)? 
: 
: I'm not sure what is meant by giving Christianity a second chance.  If
: this means giving it a chance as a state religon, then my answer is
: no; the kingdom of God is not brought about by forcing it on a
: population.

I meant things like school prayer, requiring Presidents to be Christians,
excluding atheist from public office, creches on public property,
changing the pledge of allegience to invoke God, requiring "In
God We Trust" on our currency, etc.

: > If fundamentalism is just a minority,
: >why do moderates allow them to set the agenda?
: 
: I believe there are better ways to bring about the kingdom of God than
: to work through government channels.  My answer is, "because moderates
: have no political agenda."

Why don't they seem to be willing to stand up to those Christians
who do?  I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but it
seems that way sometimes.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<1992Aug24.182705.15806@samba.oit.unc.edu> <adams.715353838@spssig> 
	<ksand-010992174645@wintermute.apple.com> <adams.715465159@spssig>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:18:19 GMT

In article <adams.715465159@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>The simple, concise answer is that God is perfect while we are not.  It is
>not possible for God to sin (ie how can he work against his own will or
>seperate himself from himself)?

And, by the same logic, it is not possible for God to do good, is it? No big
deal, this is the transcendent, transcendent of such work-a-day concepts
as good and evil. We have here a common misconception about the Persian
light/dark concept. The transcendent is not all good and no bad. It is in
the union of the pairs of opposites that you find transcendence. Keep in
mind that human concepts are ... human concepts. Human perception is ...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:33:39 GMT

In <26AUG199217160410@chemvx.tamu.edu> Brett G. Lemoine wrote about
faith and science:

-Brett G. Lemoine:
>There is a distinct difference in faith on a subject that has the
>possibility of being tested and faith in God.
>
Right. But there are statements that CANNOT be tested without invoking
circularity. Any world view and any theory must necessarily contain such
statements. With this in mind, there's NO important difference between a
logically valid theistic system and a logically valid atheistic system:
both must be based on a kind of faith.

-Brett G. Lemoine:
>The former can be eventually shown to be valid or invalid while the
>latter is forever untestable.
>
No. You can never test validity of basis assumptions, if only because
these assumptions define your standards for the test. The same happens
to my faith in God: This faith, with the assumption of the usefulness of
objective and subjective experience and the usefulness of logic define
my standards of validity. Hence all my ideas which I consider as valid
must agree with my experience, with experience reported by other people,
with the laws of logic, and with the existence of God. I cannot test the
existence of God. I cannot test the existence of my wife. I can only
test internal consistency of what I say about God or about my wife,
ASSUMING that the standards I use for this test are reasonable.

Scientists usually believe that the 'objective' objects they study are
real, but they will NEVER be able to prove that these objects are not
imaginary. Theists believe that God (very often described as a being
accessible via subjective channels only) is real but, like scientists,
they will NEVER be able to prove that they are talking about reality. To
prevent unnecessary comments: There's NO reason to believe that all real
and observable objects must be observable in an objective way. One may
adopt this belief as one of his axioms, but one does not have to do it.

-Brett G. Lemoine:
>why should I, as a non-believer accept your claim to his existence
>based on faith any more than someone elses claim that he doesn't exist?
>
You accept the claim which you prefer. This is a good personality test:
Personality is the only factor that really counts. 


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Summary: talk about a gigantic leap of faith!
Organization: Now I see the light, I'm going to stand up for my right!
	<adams.714663184@spssig> <fRJlrrM@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<adams.714837075@spssig> <BtLvHF.Cs6@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<adams.714863951@spssig>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:06:48 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
From a paper I wrote for a theology class:
   We find this covenant in the conversation between God and the serpent
where God tells the serpent that
        "(15)...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
        between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
        and you will strike his heel." (Gen 2, NIV)

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
I still don't see where it says that God promised Eve that her 'seed' would
bring on a savior to redeem mankind. Are you forming a new religion here?

In article <adams.714863951@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
Not at all.  This is basic Christian exegesis of Genesis 2:15.  Any good
commentary on Genesis will tell you this.  A good study Bible will include
this too.  (Try the NIV Study Bible from Zondervan, for example).

---
Oh, I see, basic Christian exegesis of Genesis 2:15. I should have known. My
my, exegesis, what a fancy word you have there. And silly me, I thought
Genesis 2:15 just says that there will be enmity between man and snake and
and that the snake, who started all the trouble, will bite at the heels of man 
and man in turn will crush the snakes head. I guess this snake is not what it
seems. I guess I really need to get some of this Christian exegesis to see 
what's really going on. This scripture stuff is so complicated and full of 
hidden and secret meaning, isn't it? Jah! ... Ras TafarI!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:33:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug27.115138.20228@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> >> >May I suggest that there _may_ be an
> >> >evil force that _may_ be causing the chaos we have seen so far on
> >> >this group?  Be careful!

> >May I suggest that you are slightly paranoid?
> 	May I suggest that you are slightly blind ?

Could you then justify why I don't see millions of deamons jumping 
around my keyboard, directing my fingers to write common sense
arguments? If someone says I'm blind because I follow the words
of Thomas Paine, then I'm frankly speaking honoured.

If dark forces urges me to think logically about things in the world,
then I don't mind that dark forces are using my small brain -- quite
the contrary.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.213415.16644@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>
>It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
>to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
>the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
>ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
>
>1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
>then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
>being forgiven and not the others?
>
>If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
>atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
>in God?
>
>Please post your replies.
>
>Young Huh

It's awesome.  In the death of Jesus, we basically have God making the
decision to forgive any and all sins.  This is pure love.  No matter
how much and how often we have wronged Him, He has shown us in the death
of His Son, that He has chosen in advance to forgive anyone who confesses.

But it takes two for it to be completed: (1) God willing to forgive, and
(2) the person willing to be forgiven.  The latter is where the most
trouble comes: that of a person not wanting to be forgiven.  Somehow, 
every person will have the opportunity to chose for God to forgive them.
And when they do, the death of Jesus Christ is their atonement.

The Scripture in Isaiah 30:18 comes to mind in that the LORD waits, that
He may be gracious unto us.  He waits to forgive the willing sinner because
as Micah 7:18-19 says, He delights in showing mercy and so that He may
hurl our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

God bless,
-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:53:48 GMT

In article <BtyKpC.4vz@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> 
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
<It's just more of what I've said before, people scaring others into their way
<of life, using stories of a mythical "God" to drive them into submission...
<...it's not done maliciously, it's done after the fact to explain it away,
<lifting the burden from the shoulders of those in whom the fault does lie, and
<them becoming part of the culture so that it becomes impossible to fault any
<member of it, for that is what they believe.  Or so it seems.  Really, every
<human is responsible for his or her beliefs whether he or she likes it or not,
<and "I was just following [divine] orders" has never been a valid excuse,
<whether media hype "vindicated" LtC. Oliver North or not.

But if you are eating the fruit of knowledge of good AND bad, then you are
not following divine orders, if there is even such a thing. But, is that
good or bad? Reward or punishment? Curse or blessing?
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.060115.15464@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, eha@phoenix.oulu.fi (Esa
Haapaniemi) writes:
> I think this conversation is only for different believers. Either
> somebody believes in the GOD against "facts" or then in THE evolution
> against law of natures.

  Huh?  What has any belief in God got to do with Evolution?  Evolution makes
absolutely no claims about God at all.  This is like saying you either believe
in God or chocolate ice cream.

  BTW, evolution fits very nicely into the "law of natures" (assuming you meant
"laws of nature").  If there were any contradictions it would represent a rather
serious flaw in evolution theory.  So far nobody has found such a flaw.

> As you can see, I have my opinion, and I let you have yours. And I'd
> like to get this talk out of sci. groups, because it's totally
> religion (evolution believers are sometime more hostile than us).

  The proper way to do this is by editing the Newsgroups line, as above.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.anthropology
From: rspear@sookit (Richard Spear)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:36:28 GMT

..man as a cause of extinctions...

i wonder if anyone has looked at what this data might say about 
population size...pre-'neolithic revolution' pops are always projected
as quite small...was the extermination of mega-herbs just 'sport', or
have we badly underestimated pop prehistoric pop sizes?

--
richard
rspear@sookit.jpl.nasa.gov
all disclaimers apply