HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 05:56:59 GMT

(I posted)
>>written/said by people.  I have never met a god, nor have I read anything 
> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) replies:
> Don't worry, you will!

So will you!  And won't Allah be pissed at both of us!

May the Peace of Buddha be Upon You,

Brian  /-|-\

PS I'm not a Buddhist [sp?] :)
=====================================================
And God so loved His World and His People that
He gave them a wonderous entertainment:
just over four light-years away was a place
called "Earth", and those who were in His Sight 
watched the funny antics of the creatures that 
lived there.
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:57:25 GMT
	<1992Aug28.024621.147049@zeus.calpoly.edu>
	<1992Aug30.152351.1120@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu's message of 30 Aug 92 15:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.152351.1120@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
 
   There are plenty of people who were better than you burning in hell
   right now saying that Christianity is not real.

Unless you've actually been there, met them and have some photos :-),
I think you need to preface that sentence with "I believe".

Just because you believe in something something to be true, and I
believe the opposite is true it doesn't mean one of use wrong.
The key word is "believe".

Why is is that I have a hard time convincing people (where "people"
here means almost exclusively Christians) of this simple fact.  Of
course you could dispute it is a fact, all I can say is that I
"believe" it :-)

bevan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dpugmire%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (David Pugmire)
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:49:21 MDT
Organization: University of Utah

>Without "faith" in the unknown and the scarcely believeable,
>it is unlikely "science" would have progressed as far as it
>has.

>Clearly "faith" does not mean "ceasing to think", much
>as you would like to have it that way; perhaps in one sense,
>it means being willing to hold as true for a moment, pending
>further investigation.

>Dano

I agree that faith != ceasing to think.

In the Book of Mormon (a "bible-type" record of the people in 
the Americas translated in 1830 ) an excellent discourse on faith 
is given. In Alma Chapter 32, Alma talks of faith and how faith can 
become knowledge.  Faith is a stepping stone to greater things.  He 
says that before you can even have faith you have to experiment with
some principle and see if brings forth good fruit.  If it does, you 
have faith in that principle - Faith requires some experience, it takes
thinking and effort.  If no good fruit is borne, the principle is
to be cast off.
If you don't at least assume that something could possibly be true,
you can never know if it is or not.

I'm new to the group, and hope I don't repeat what has been discussed
before, but what would the world be like if no one had dared to think
that the world was round, or that a spaceship could reach the moon.

dp
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller)
Subject: Re: This pi=3 business
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:46:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.232106.17516@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>In article <BtLxJG.DA4@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.164010.4549@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
>>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>><1 Kings 7:23 gives the dimensions of a circular shaped object --
>><   Ten cubits from rim to rim = diameter.
>><   Thirty cubits measuring around it = circumference.
>><Ever heard of rounding off ?
>><Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One
>>
>>Two.
>>
>><Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One
>>
>>Two.
>>
>><Divide two numbers of one significant digit, and how many significant
>><digits can you keep in the answer?
>>
>>Divide two numbers of two significant digits and you can keep two in the answer,
>>well, sort of, depends. There is this thing called round off error but it is
>>a second order effect.
>>
>><"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.
>>
>>Yes, and Pi=3.1 *IS CORRECT* to two significant digits. If you construct a
>>circle of diameter 10, the correct circumference is 31, to two digits. Are you
>>saying that your God is only accurate to one digit? Not so sharp at math eh?
>>
>No, Paul, 10 and 30 have 1 significant digit.  
>The last digit is not significant.
>If 10 were to have two significant digits, it must be represented by
>10.0. 

>So, the numbers obtained are subject to the accuracy of the measuring
>devices, and since no decimals are given, we must assume that the
>measuring device is accurate to whole numbers only, and as such the
>last digit is not significant. 

This is only true if they were using a 10-cubit measuring stick.  That wouldn't be 
very convenient, being about 15 feet long.  Must have been a bit unwieldy.  Probably 
explains the innacuracy.  "Lets see.  One.... two... three... Oh shit!  There's a bit left 
over.  Uh, close enough."


>=============================================================================
>= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
>= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
>= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    'splains alot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ...it's not funny 'til someone loses an eye.
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
mail: davem@county.lmt.mn.org | flames: alt.good.news | Opinions=mine alone
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:34:34 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

In article <1992Aug26.203344.3474@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.714808795@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>... douglas claims that christianity assersts that sex is disgusting.
>
>Some forms of chistianity do. The prohibition on premarital sex among most
>forms implies this...

No, that's not the reason for it.  The reason that premarital sex is
prohibited in most (all?) forms of Christianity is that sex is
considered one of the most *sacred* acts a man and a woman can do, not
one of the most disgusting!

Christianity teaches that sex before marriage is wrong because it
belittles the importance of the act.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Twin Peaks Junkie    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:57:18 GMT


Hello Dano,

Steve ADAMS only wrote the last part of that message, I,
steve GROSS wrote that part you are referring to here.  The contradictions
are between Mr. Adams, and myself, not between anything that he wrote.


>(Steve Adams) wrote in reply to Paal Sternberg:
>
>   Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it, or
>   is the author of it.  The bible plainly says that Lucipher is the father
>   of it, and not God.  Why does everyone always blame God?  Imagine God
>   creating an angelic being with a mind, and emotions, etc...  could that
> 
>I replied:  TO ME, STEVE GROSS
>
>  This is called "begging the question." If god created everthing,
>  including satan, then god also created evil; worse, if god is
>  omniscent, then god knew what god was doing. . .
>
>Steve  ( ADAMS ) replies:
> 
> And?  So what?  If God wished to have freely given worship and love, the
> logical possibility of not loving or worshping had to exist.  As such, I
> don't see why there is such a big problem.  If we are to have a free will,
> the possibility of sin had to exist...or there never truly was free will.
> 
>So, you admit there is evil in the world* (even if it was to
>allow humans 'free choice') and you admit that god created "everything" 
>
>This seems to contradict your ( MY, STEVE GROSS ) earlier statement:
>
>   Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it...
>
>This is the point Paal Berg was apparently trying to make.
>
>--
>Dano
>
>*("Dr. Nancy's Sweetie" makes an interesting point in this regard)

Maybe I should change names, it is hard to distinguish between the Steve's
sometimes.  This is primarily why I always call him Mr. Adams.
Just thought you'd like to know.

Steve.Gross

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:27:05 GMT


Dano the contractor writes:

> Paal Steinar Berg wondered:
> 
>  Can one combine these statements:
>  
>  1.God is allmighty.
>  2.God is only good. (i.e. not evil)
>  3.Evil things happens.
>
>(Steve Gross) replied:
>
> ---- Why do they have to be combined?  God IS Almighty.  God IS good.  
> God IS not evil.  And evil things do happen.  
> 
> Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it, or
> is the author of it.  The bible plainly says that Lucipher is the father
> of it, and not God.  Why does everyone always blame God?  Imagine God
> creating an angelic being with a mind, and emotions, etc...  could that
>
>This is called "begging the question." If god created everthing,
>including satan, then god also created evil; worse, if god is
>omniscent, then god knew what god was doing. . .

>Dano

---- Is it a possibility that when God created Lucipher, he created him
good?  Doesn't the bible say that he (lucipher) was filled with knowlege,
the most beautiful angel etc...   That sounds pretty good to me.  God
being omniscient surely would have known about lucipher's eventual evil. 
But, is it so impossible to think that while he foreknew what was going to
happen, he allowed it so that it would be for his glory.  Everyone is so
quick to blame God, or attribute evil to God, when this simply is not the
case.

BTW:
Thank you Mr. Adams for the ex nihilo thing again, but it is a silly question.
If I can think of a reason for evil existing, then surely God has a better
one. 

Also BTW:
The passages in Isaiah never say that God created evil, only darkness
according to your translations of the verses.  God simply CANNOT be
responsible for evil.  If he is, then the whole of the bible is false.  I
refuse to accept that.

Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:45:38 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <ksand-200892122116@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:

>>I would like to know if this is really the case -- do JWs believe
>>that there was never any rain on Earth before the Flood? This is 
>>getting more and more crazy... This issue opens a huge new can
>>of worms, all crawling all over the JW logic.

>This is religion we are talking here; what made you think that logic
>has anything to do with it?

	Because we (JWs) use it. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Revival Centres
Date: 24 Aug 92 17:55:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,aus.religion
X-From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
X-Newsgroups: aus.religion

X-Date: 24 Aug 92 12:54:40 EST
X-Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

There is an agressive Christian-like fringe group in Melbourne called the
Revival Centres of Australia. They have some very weird doctrines including
British Israelism and Baptismal regeneration. They also say you must speak in
tongues to be saved. If anybody has information on their origin/history as well
as theology, or know of references, could they please e-mail me.


	"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love
	 I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal"  1Cor 13:1
                                                                (NKJV)





-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15555 alt.atheism:16474
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:41:57 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <sbuckley.715468099@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>  christianity does not advocate accepting the status quo. 

(Statements like this are so much fun.)  There ARE some verses in
the NT which seem to direct christians to struggle against
the status quo.  There are other verses, especially in the epistles,
which seem to direct christians to accept the status quo.  Which
is the "real" meaning of christianity?  More importantly, how
can we decide?
  
>why do you
>think so many christians are getting criticized for speaking up about
>the ills of society? 

You mean like Murphy Brown?  Lack of prayer in public schools?
Interracial dating and marriage?  What did "christians" have to
say about any of the recent US military adventures?

>i actually found that without an ultimate, absolute
>authority in life [god] there is no justification for me to do anything
>good.

Does personal and/or social well-being here on earth ever enter
into your calculations of the "good"?

>not just that i'll be punished for doing evil, but to know god
>means to do his will and live a righteous life.

Is the "righteous life" CLEARLY elucidated, unambiguously, anywhere
in the bible?  Please consider the numerous ethical dictates
in both the OT and NT.

>without god, i found
>no compelling reason to do anything good and my life dwindled into
>cynicism and despair and lack of concern for anyone until i found morality
>rooted in the absolute of god, rather than in the whims of people
>[bill clinton is the answer for that].

The thought that life on earth is merely a try-out for an eternal
afterlife, with the Big Guy acting as a tyrannical scorekeeper,
fills me with despair.  Why have concern for other humans
under this circumstance?

>and for those who'd like an
>excuse to bow out of personal accountability for life, that's
>bush.  somewhere in the middle is truth.  jesus beats both bush
>[and his republican cronies] and clinton.
>

Actually, because I devise my own morality, and will defend my
choices if anyone is interested, I think that I am a paragon
of personal accountability.  Several times have I heard 
christians excuse the bad effects of their actions because
they were just doing god's will.  Not to mention those
christians who feel that morality is secondary to faith.

>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unitarian Christianity
Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:50:00 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(G. Wolfe Woodbury) corrects my egregious misappellation:

 >Again, agreed. Remember too, that there is an organization
 >called CUUPs (Coven of Unitarian-Universalist Pagans).

 Bzzt, *wrong*   thank you for playing.......
 
 The organization in question (CUUPs) is an affiliate member of the UUA
 ...  and The COVENANT of UU Pagans.

Thanks for the correction and subsequent elucidation.
It was really a typo.

Dano
From: murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Brainwashing
Summary: Request for info
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:09:00 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.



Anyone have any info on Brainwashing tactics used by cults/churches? I've
some need of this information in order to combat such tactics. Particularly
interested in Neuro-linguistics and what if anything can be done against it.
Any info at all would be most helpful, and gratefully received.

e-mail please as I can't usually read articles before they expire.

<murraysd@dcs.gla.ac.uk>

Stephen D Murray.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:02:03 GMT

In article <vgbnjjb_@aix01.rz.fht-mannheim.de> mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes:
>John Emery <emery@tc.fluke.com> wrote:
>[about murder being wrong, and right/wrong in general]
>: >: I think the issue is still alive and would enjoy hearing thoughts on it.
>: >What about less thoughts about right and wrong, and more love in practice?

[...]

>: Perhaps love is an absolute right.

>Is it _in_practice_ helpful to tell someone who doesn't love he _should_love_?

Sometimes.  For instance, you said in the line above:

>What about less thoughts about right and wrong, and more love in practice?


>Does love come on command, or is it a spontanous expression?

Perhaps both.

>Can it be ruled and still be alive, or does it need and give freedom?

Perhaps both.

>Does love exclude that what doesn't love?
>
I don't think so.

>Love and do what you want :-)

Are you telling us to love? :-)

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
>  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *

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.newage
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:36:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.234611.219@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.152502.6716@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>Newage as I see it: a lightly knit group of individuals and orginazitions
>>that hold to pantheism, global enlightment, and reincarnation, who believe
>>we are exiting the piscean age and enterining into the age of aquarius.
>
>Do you consider me "new age?"
>
>Using your criteria:  No, no, no, no and no.
>
>(I do not believe in pantheism == god is everything.  Polytheism is
>arguable, but most people are polytheistic.  (There are roughly
>2 billion Jews, Moslems and Christians, but over 5.5 billion people.
>Besides, many Christians are _not_ monotheistic -- I would argue many
>southern Baptists view "Satan" as a god rather than 'fallen angel.')).
>
>(I do not believe in "global enlightment" because most people are too
>lazy and/or scared).
>
>(I consider reincarnation an irrelevant question, since it presupposes
>knowledge of events after death).
>
>(I reject, outright, astrology including "piscean" and "aquarian" ages).
>
>
>Bear Giles
>bear@fsl.noaa.gov

Then I guess I wouldn't consider you "newage", Bear.  What about me?
Do you consider me newage?  Why or why not?

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.newage
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:49:59 GMT

Marc Wachowitz writes:

>Stephen Buckley wrote:

>:   but in my mind i cannot understand the firm relevance of something
>: so incommunicable.
>: but if it's incommunicable, i can't know it in ways i need.

>Maybe it can help you to live happyly without some imaginary needs?

  well, if you knew me a year ago after a decade of utter depression trying
to live without needs [hence identity, hence value], you'd know how ridiculous
it is to live without needs.  what makes up a person without these
"societally-induced, unreal, imaginary needs"?  being without needs is to
be vacuous and empty.  no real desirable endpoint there.  needs are not 
solvable by peeling them away out of existence; you can't solve something by
getting rid of needing it, to do so would be only a psychological manipulation
of a natural need that comes from living.  do away with needs and we stop
eating, curl up and die;  but at least then we can truly merge with the utter
nothingness of the universe.  a sad end to life if you ask me.

>: and then we lose our identity.

>The question is - what is this supposed "identity"?
>Just a login name and a password?

  and all the cosmic muffins whose books line the newage section of my
bookshelf that i used to look to for guidance, question the necessity of having
an identity.  after studying zen, tao, hinduism and buddhism, and all the
really well-developed critiques of identity, i find it's all meaningless
for the two reasons that to be without an identity is to be a vacuous nothing,
and the world is intelligible enough to understand while we keep our identities.
to abrogate our identities is to sacrifice our critical capacities and 
then anything can influence us.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage