HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:48:19 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>>Apologies in advance, but this strikes me as silly. Forgiveness is in the mind
>>of the forgiver.  If Joe punches me, and I take offense, do I need him to
>>be willing to be forgiven before I can forgive him?  No! His attitude is
>>irrelevant.  I say to myself, well I'm not going to hold it against him. He may
>>say he wants me to hold it against him. But if I want to forgive him, that
>>matters not a whit. You are forgiven, Joe - even if you hate me, I will not
>>hold anything against you. 

>  wow, it seems in this you have described just how it is.  god forgives
>us regardless of whether we accept it or even acknowledge the necessity
>of god's forgiveness.  god says, "your are forgiven, [everyone] - 
>even if you hate me, i will not hold anything against you."  

>  but we still have the freedom to ignore that forgiveness and all it
>entails.  just like joe can choose to ignore your forgiveness.

I can make up gods who are forgiving too, Stephen.  For example, Jumbo the
Flying Frog, who hops from planet to planet, has forgiven you for your sin
of disbelief in it.  There you are.  Counter that one.

>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:19:13 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <l9nl03INNg6p@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>In article <BtKpJq.35M@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>In article <l9ku2fINNe8d@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...
>>
>>[...]

I've got a couple of comments in response to Ahmed reply to Robert - I don't
have a Qur'an and will not try to respond to Ahmed post.  However, if you
are willing, would you (Ahmed) be willing to post the differences or
even the improvements the Qur'an has over the Bible, especially the 
New Testament (Matthew-Revelation)?  If so, change the header and post
then - I'd be interested.

>>>I've pointed out in a couple of other articles that the Bible has enough
>>>errors that it's incorrect to call it 'true.'  The Qur'an is free of these
>>>errors because it is from God Himself - it is not even an 'inspired' word
>>>of a man; rather it is direct Divine revelation.

I think I see your point here, but many sections of the Bible are direct
Divine revelation.

>>	Pulling out my local Qur'an:
>
>I'm glad you posted: it gives me an opportunity to really start a good 
>discussion now.  First: who wrote the translation you used?

Please, give the name of the one or group of translators for the
translation you use, since you ask for the same.  How about giving
a few names and comment on the worthiness of them - I'm not familar
with the options available.

>....
>Verse [7:28] is speaking on the mentality of some people who sin:
>
>	[7:28]
>	When they do anything that is shameful, they say:
>	"We found our fathers doing so" and "Allah commanded
>	us thus".  Say (O Prophet): "Nay, Allah never
>	commands what is shameful: Do you attribute to Allah
>	something of which you have no knowledge?"

What do the parenthetical items, '(...)', mean?  Are they in the
original or are they comments by the translator or by yourself?

>                    ...     , but I think you ought to get a real 
>translation of the Qur'an, and then quote from there.

>Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quran Translation
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <l9q8poINNh6h@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...

[...]

>So not only can one read a translated Qur'an, one can also pray in 
>"nonArabic" until he or she can memorize some of the Arabic.  The spirit
>is more important than the word of the law, and the Prophet was 
>foremost in recognizing this, at least the foremost of humanity.

	Why should someone pray in Arabic? If the Allah of this world 
is addressed in any language, will He not hear it? Why should one pray 
in memorized words, the meaning of which may not even be known? It 
seems that the life of Islam desires to make 7th century arab 
culture predominate. Why is one of the attributes of the islamic god 
that of ethno-centricism?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Humanism (was Re: This is SO pointless...)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:13:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.221355.8517@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@iam.unibe.ch (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
>(Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>Ah secular humanists...
>>...OK, what about humanists? Well that one is pretty obvious, isn't it? 
>>I mean after all we are all humans and so of course we are also humanists, 
>>aren't we? Or do we think that humans are evil? 
>
>Do we think that humanity is evil?
>Lets look around a little. Ethnic groups are slaughtering each other in the 
>Balkans, a quarter of more of the Somalian people may starve due to drought and
>government policy in the midst of a civil war. Racial hatred boils in Palestine,
>Iraq suppresses its Shiites and Kurds. Violent crime in the United States is 
>nearly of epidemic proportions. Yes, I believe we can assert that humanity is
>more than a bit evil. I'm sure concentration camp survivors would be glad to
>know that man is basically good. How hard is it to locate the latest atrocity?

People do evil things, humans are not entirely good.  And yet you post
this to a sizeable readership in the confident belief that virtually
all the readers will agree that the things you cite are wrong and
should not be.  A relatively small number of misguided people can
produce considerable misery.  Nevertheless, that vast majority of
people throughout history have been basically good.  It is a vast leap
from "some people do evil" or "humanity is imperfect" to "humanity is
evil".  I find the latter a very negative and unfortunate attitude.

>Humanism (n) 1. An attitude or system of thought asserting the primacy of man
>over metaphysical or abstract principles. 

I'll buy into that.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15517 alt.atheism:16442
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:47:44 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <sam.715453681@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>
>>Uhm, have you taken a theology course?  Do you know anything about Process
>>Theology?  It denies ex-niholo creation.  How about John Hick's universal 
>>salvation, derived from Iraneaus?  Christian theology is a very broad field.  
>>There is plenty of room to doubt the literal bible.  Most modern, 
>>non-evangelical Christian theologians deny 'plenary verbal inspiration.'

>To repeat:  The christianity that most people are talking about
>(if I may be so bold to include so diverse a group!) is the
>christianity taught to most of us and currently believed by hundreds
>of millions worldwide.  It is not the contortions of logic devised
>by a small handful of theologians and smuggled into discussion
>under the term "christianity".  

I challange you to look at the theology of the average Lutheran (Misouri
Synod & ELCA), Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist and Prsbyterian (PCUSA).  
These are major denominations that do not agree with each other theologically.
Also study the differences between the Orthodox (Russian & Greek) churches
and the western churches.  Now do you see what I mean?

>The theologians I have read (and divinity students with whom I
>have had discussions) offer a type of religion which I find
>generally more appealing that the types offered on every
>street corner, and many of them are quite willing to
>accomodate doubt.  But these people are largely talking
>to themselves.  Christianity, as practiced and as a social
>force, ultimately relies and the acceptance of certain
>beliefs as true without evidence, and despite any evidence
>to the contrary.

I hate to tell you, but denominationally (and within denominations) you
will find widely varying theology.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:35:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BtLy1B.DEr@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-240892162844@wintermute.apple.com> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> <There are *many* schools of thinking where self-realization implies
> <self-termination. So for instance in Buddhism, englightenment ends
> <in termination. So you became a God and then you kill yourself. Does
> <that make sense concerning worshipping yourself. I love myself so 
> <much I will terminate myself. Ugh.
> 
> That sounds like Christianity, not Buddhism. Buddha acheived enlightenment
> and came back to play with the children. Joyful participation in the sorrows
> of the world, that is the way of Buddha. Not HATRED of humanity and human
> life. Not desires to be a martyr. And enlightenment is not becoming God, that
> is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but aren't we talking about Nirvana,
and the concept of self-realization where some Christians stated
that belief in non-God implied directly belief in self. In that
sense your answer provided enough ammunition to kill this myth.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: sxr@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.l.russell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:25:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Has there been any information about the Dead Sea Scrolls lately?
What is the latest "consensus"? Is there a FAQ for this?

Thanks

==============================================================
Scott Russell - AT&T Bell Labs Middletown, NJ
	Standard Disclamier Applies
"Man does not live by bread alone... there's always chocolate!"
===============================================================
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:51:07 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <l9so56INN1do@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>  Every bone in my body says "No - no God that could create this beautiful
>  world would create beings whose fate was eternal torture."  That's just me,
>  though.
>   
> No, it isn't just you. There was is in fact a christian
> denomination called the Universalists, who originally
> believed "everyone would be saved".
> 
>  If my logic is flawed ... I will humbly eat my words and
>  repent myself in dust and ashes.
>   
> Remember, you saw it here folks!  :)

Not THAT logic, the other logic... Sheesh... :)

> 
> Dano
> 
>>The above opinions are not my responsibility, but Yahweh's, since he created
>>me in such a way that I would feel that they are correct. Complaints should
>>be directed to Him, not me, bub. 
> 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist/Christian (orig. poster speaks)
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:41:59 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
: In article <sbuckley.714784479@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: >  but you need to have faith based on
: >no evidence for the evidence to come into your heart--a contention that
: >merits the highest ridicule in this newsgroup, i know, but it's still
: >true.
: 
: I second that...  Still one of my favorite quotes:
: 
: "Thinking if I could see I would believe...
:    then someone said believe and you WILL see!"
:       -Petra

Credulity is one of the most ridiculous virtues in Christianity's
bag of requirements.  Nowhere else in life is it a useful concept.
Why here?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<graham.715309353@galois>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:57:24 GMT

In article <graham.715309353@galois> 
graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Are the insults really necessary?

Probably not, my apologies.

>Think the following		blind faith = faith
>						faith = educated guess.

Ah, but that makes no sense at all to me. Are you saying that blind faith
is an educated guess, or what? I see a clear distinction between faith
and blind faith but maybe that's just me.
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Ref: Why I am not a Muslim [was re: Why I am an atheist/Christian...]
Date: 27 Aug 1992 00:13:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <adams.714861728@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.714849832@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
 
[stuff deleted]
  
>This is good to hear.  Do you mind if I ask what 'branch' of Islam you
>follow?  It would appear that the Shi'ite branch is fanatical and
>fundamentalist, comparable to Christians of the same mold.  This is the
>branch that has spawned Khomeni, et al.

I am a Sunni Muslim, like 80-90% of the Muslim world.  The Shi'ites are
not fanatical or fundamentalist to the best of my knowledge.  As to
what Khomeini was...perhaps a Shi'ite can elaborate; I must confess
my ignorance.

>>Execution of political dissidents amounts to taking a life when no life
>>has been taken.  The Qur'an does not uphold this as justice.
>Also good to hear.  I take it then the Islamic Republic of Iran is an
>outlaw state?  In the eyes of Muslims, as well as most of the West.

You may be jumping to some early conclusions here...  Perhaps the best
answer is one that will surprise you: there is not a single Muslim
government on this earth today.  God and the last Prophet gave us
some very clear guidelines to follow in setting up a government, and
these guidelines have not been followed at least since 1924 when the 
caliphate of the Ottoman Empire was annulled.
Thus, Iran is unfairly singled out in your post.  My parents are
Egyptian, and I was born here.  The government of Egypt is an active
enemy of Islam, and so are all the Arab countries to its left and
right.  It may interest you to know that only 20% of all Muslims are
Arab.  The overwhelming majority are in Asia.
 
[stuff deleted]
 
> -Steve

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Church/State separation
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:25:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Aug30.085203.14749@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>Most Christians believe you can't have morals without religion as
>a basis.  Doesn't this imply they believe Church/State separation
>is misguided?  If not, how do you explain this apparent 
>inconsistency?

	From the sounds of it, George Bush is trying to make that inconsistency
no longer inconsistent.
	However, the point is more to the fact that the government is a) not
concerned with morals (at least it shouldn't be) but rather with violations of
rights, and the protection of those same rights to each and every person, and
b) not a theocracy.  If church and state merged, they would be ganged up against
tabernacle, circle, cabal, sect, sanctuary, temple, and so on.
	Christianity is not the only religion out there.
	It is certainly not the best.
	It is, as a matter of fact, not even right.
	So why should it have a say in the affairs of other religions?
	well, that's that.

>-- 
>Jeff Young
>
>Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:45:26 GMT

serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
: >sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: >:   judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
: >: for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
: >: accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
: >: don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
: >: it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
: >: accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
: >: or not.
: 
:    Wrong, you are not judge only on the fact that you accept his 
:    salvation.  You must accept his savlation and follow the word of
:    God.  You will still be judged based on your actions after you 
:    accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.  

This is just the old faith vs. works argument that Christiantity has
struggled with for centuries.  The answer isn't so obvious.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:23:30 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <3759@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes:
>In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug24124956@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
>vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>My guess: the eye since fish have them but don't (?) have lids.

Some fish have lids.

>>     Then why do all so -called higher life forms engage in sexual repro-
>>duction?
>
>Recombination between the variants is faster by sexual reproduction.  It produces
>more varieties faster; better chance to get good combinations that work.  Lots
>of people have worked on this excellent question.

There is another explanation which is popular - that is it cuts down on the
chances that 'foreign' genes will be able to co-opt your own offspring.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Poetry
Summary: Now, will you follow me and be free?
Organization: Learn FROM dogma, but please, do not be dogmatic
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.140447.7153@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
<Re: Dept. of Sweeping Generalization Warning #1 to S. Hartigan:
<<sniff> The lament of the arts student: Does a statement have to be 100%
<accurate to be useful? <pout>
<Yours in chastisement,
<Sean Hartigan
<hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Only a fundamentalist would think that a statement has to be 100% accurate to
be useful. True/False, Good/Evil, these are pairs of opposites not a choice of
one or the other. What a strange corruption of reductionism we have in
fundamentalism. Anything can be useful, irregardless of whether or not other
people might claim it is true or false. Even Luke 14:26 serves a purpose. The
good student can learn from anything, even a rock. But having access to as
much dogma as possible doesn't hurt. The good student seeks all info, whether
judged good or bad or whether banned in the US or not. Then it is the student
who judges for one's self. Don't get conned by the sellers of absolute answers.
It is the individual who must decide. The Lord delivered us FROM slavery, it
is His intention for us to walk the freedom walk, not fall for the easy life
of the free gift grifters. The creator gave you a brain, use it! If the only
reason you believe something is that someone else said it is the direct word
of God, your beliefs are very weak. You are easy prey to the Christian Devil
who uses this very trick. Think and reason, that is the purpose of your brain.
Don't choke on dogma, chew it and digest it. Take responsibility for your
life, you are the one who can judge for the one. Follow someone else and you
will only be led astray. The easy path is not the way of light.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Pi - please read !
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:42:22 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <ksand-010992175026@wintermute.apple.com>
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.143636.16733@cs.joensuu.fi>
>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) wrote:

>>The reason why pi != 3.14 in the Bible is that the pi wasn't
>>actually invited yet and the circumference was measured with a rope:
>>First you measured the radius (5 cubits) and then you measured the
>>circumference by placing the rope to the circle six times. 6 * 5 = 30.

>... so God used a rope to reveal the people of Israel the value
>of pi???

*God* used a rope?  I didn't realize that God was doing everything in
the OT!

Mark
-- 
   Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a
criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
   -- Werner Heisenburg
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:25:38 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714968420@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   no, check out talk.religion.newage and ask shirley maclaine.  it's a big
>> and growing philosophy that enlightenment means realizing how each of us
>> is god.  *that's* what's presumptuous.

>Sigh, Shirley MacLaine does not equal all the New Age or ancient world
>religions. True, many of the Eastern Culture religions push for
>self-realization
>and to become a God, but that's nothing new under the sun. Mormons and 
>Scientologists have the same goal. Sometimes I even wonder if not 
>Christians are keen to be the 'chosen people' that will end up in heaven.
>It also implies self-realization, whether you want it or not.

  it is seriously incorrect to say that christianity implies self-
realization in the way much of the newage does.  i do not wish, as a
christian, to live from my self-sufficient, personally-empowered
store of omniscience.  i wish to know god, not to be god.  newage self-
realization has nothing to do with an absolute creator/redeemer.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"