HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:00:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <25657@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21122919@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>, vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes...
>
>>Some great scientists are believers in creation, some believe in evolution.
>
>I'll call that bluff.  Are there any great scientists out there who would care
>to defend creationism with anything other than century-old, long discredited
>arguments?

    I think you got the gist of this argument.  That is, the 'great 
    scientists' that believed in creation lived before Darwin.

    In fact, I think that to believe in creation as a scientific
    theory (except maybe the 'give it a kick and let it evolve for 
    20 billion years' school) automatically disqualifies one from 
    being a 'great scientist'.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:46:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug14.125146.6956@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>  
>  Have you ever had an experience you choose to describe as "religious?" If so,
> how did you decide to classify it as such? For example, if you had an intense
> conversion experience, what led you to conclude that it was supernatural in 
> origin, rather than regarding it as a hallucination, aberration in conscious-
> ness, etc.?
> 
In my case(a coversion experience in the person of Jesus, circa, 1975)
not only resulted in a supernatural change of attitude and thinking
which i know i had no control over previously, but external circumstances
were altered too, i.e., a steady flow of externally applied bad luck
from unknown sources was closed off completely, something which was
noted quite fantastically by me and others who knew me. I did not find
myself in the bask of good luck or supernatural good fortune, but a
complete cessation of the bad. I'm sure many of us know people whom
appear to have the opposite of the midas touch:-)

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:52:44 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>i wrote:
>: 
>:   if you wanna define "gods in every normal sense" as spiritual entities
>: with more power than humans then i suppose there are billions of gods.  but
>: all gods [according to the bible] were created equal [as it were].  one
>: god claims to be the one true creator god above all the rest.  and as i 
>: christian, i do not worship the one true god to rationalize out of relevance
>: all those other spiritual entities with power.  on the contrary, my 
>: experience with spritual powers other than god in part led me to the
>: one true god...so it behooves me none to pretend that pagans are wrong
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I can't help thinking you are saying two contradictory things.  You
>admit that lesser gods exist, yet persist in claiming there is "one
>true god."  Can a lesser god be false, yet still exist?

  that was a rhetorical device like this:  god says he's the one true god
to an audience in the bible that felt there were a lot of gods, thus 
asserting that he is to be worshipped, not the others.  so one true god
is a term in relation to polythestic gods.  i hope this makes sense.
i guess it's kinda subtle.

>: and there aren't spiritual powers out there, because i KNOW there are, it's
>: just that i choose not to have anything to do with all the lesser "gods".

>This is a wonderful justification for henotheism, but the claim that
>Christianity is a monotheistic religion is still unsupported other 
>than the assertion that God is the "one true god", whatever that means.

  wow, i had to look that up.  henotheism: the worship of one god without
deny the existence of other gods [webster].  seems much like polytheism.
well based on my paragraph above, i'm not asserting that the other "gods"
are actually gods.  tho some entities/forces that are worshipped do have
spiritual power, they are not god.
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:59:07 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <1992Aug14.213410.13111@leland.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.) writes:
> Did anyone catch the story on NPR today about the discovery of the
> bones of Ca'iaphas? (See John 18:13,14)  Facsinating archeological
> facts have come to light.  
> 
> C

  Yes, I saw a story in a Melbourne newspaper. All they found was Caiaphas'
family grave. They don't actually know if any of the bones are of the high 
priest but it is still an exciting historical find!!




-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:45:30 GMT

In article <19920818164933ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>Let's test this out. Suppose you come up to me and say, "Oh, Father
>of Our Country,...", and I reply, "Why do you call me Father of Our
>Country? Nobody but George Washington is the Father of Our Country."

There is a big difference between your example and the story in the Bible that
is being discussed.  Here, "I" refer to you with an expression associated, in
the American culture, with a SPECIFIC person (lousy association but...).  
Unless you are one of the crazies who thinks they are GW, it would be clear, 
because of the specificity, what the motivations behind your answer are.  In 
contrast, the man in the story refers to Jesus with a GENERAL adjective, 
assigning Jesus a general trait.  The association between "good" and "God" is 
in Jesus' mind alone, not in the man's mind or culture.  Because of the 
generality, it is impossible to ascertain the motivation behind Jesus' 
statement without further information.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.133830.9353@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >> 	From the facts today's science has given to us. 
> 
> >  Could you be more precise?  What facts are these that eliminate
> >macroevolution?  Do you have any references to scientific journals?
> 
> 	They're called missing links. Any textbook will do. 

  Please be specific.  Exactly what link is missing and where?  Why do the
transitions before and after this "missing link" not count as evolution?  Are
there "missing links" between every single species, without exception?

  Note that even one set of species connected without a "missing link" proves
macroevolution can occur.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:54:02 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BtEzEw.Mrr@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> [...]
> 
>>   2.3  LDS interpretations:  The LDS accept JS as a true prophet.
>>However, a caveat should be mentioned.  Prophets, revelation, and
>>scripture are not inerrant or infallible according to the Mormon
>>tradition.  JS can make mistakes and still be a true prophet.  Revelation
>>is a combination of ideas from God, mixed with human reception and
>>perception. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 	In the LDs religion, what is the difference between a false 
> prophet and a true prophet? What is the definition of a false prophet 
> in the LDs religion?
> 

Simple. Anyone whose prophecies agree in principle with LDS orthodoxy is a
true prophet. Accuracy is not a criterion. A false prophet is anyone who 
disagrees with LDS orthodoxy. 


IMHO, God could have figured out a better way than this to reveal his 
purposes to humanity. A gigantic neon sign in the sky would do the trick -
it's guaranteed that some people would still doubt his existence!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:30:55 GMT

In article <Bt0AGI.Kts@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>   This means not as you say, that an active attempt to conceive must
>be made, but that an active attempt to _prevent_ conception must _not_
>be made.  This is because it is God who creates life; man only cooperates

	First off, the joining of a sperm cell and an egg cell is not
a "creation" of life, but the production of a genetically distict cell
that turns into a new individual by natural growth processes (unless
divine intervention is necessary for the opening of morning-glory
flowers :-).

	If you wish to believe that God grabs the heads of sperm cells
with his fingers and pushes them into egg cells, be my guest. I prefer
not to.

	Or is God's contribution simply to inject a soul into every
fertilized egg cell? He must be awfully busy?

	Why a soul into a human egg cell? Why not a chimpanzee egg
cell or a dolphin egg cell?

>in the creation of life, or else resists.  By definition, it is a sin to
>resist God in anything.

	Then celibacy is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

	Because being celibate would keep sperms and eggs from
uniting, that's why.

	What could be simpler?

	The whole of the Catholic clergy is just not doing its duty.

>>	So sterilization is OK if it is a side effect of something
>>else.

>   Yes.  Consider it analogous to having a leg amputated...

	That's the trouble with false analogies.

	They are very distracting.

	I would consider it analogous to having one's ears pierced, or
to have surgery to get rid of one's zits.

>>	So that means that if one is sterilized as a side effect of
>>something else, one must still act as if one was trying to produce
>>kids

>   Same incorrect assumption as above.  What is meant is that the couple
>should not start thinking in terms of, "Hey, we can have all the sex we
>want now, and don't have to worry about having any children."

	So one must still act as if one will be punished with an
unwanted pregnancy if one practices the sin of unauthorized sex.

	Sick.

...For what it's worth to
>you, the Bible has many accounts of couples thought to be sterile, who

	On what basis? It was long before modern medicine, you know.

>later were able to conceive (John the Baptist's parents, for one).

>[ The remaining totally invalid and gratuitous attacks on the Catholic
>  Church deleted. ]

	They are no worse than the sort of arguments the Church gives.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:47:06 GMT

Scott Aaron writes:

>In physics, we have the "electroweak" interaction.  Essentially, it is ONE
>interaction that manifests itself as the weak nuclear interaction and the
>electro-magnetic interaction, which appear distinct.  If you believe most
>field theorists, the grand unified interaction would be one interaction
>that manifests itself as three--strong and weak nuclear, and electro-magnetic.
>It supposedly goes up to including gravity.  The point is there is one
>interaction that manifests itself to us as seperate interactions.

>This is similar to the Trinity.  There is one God, who manifests himself
>in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Just because there are three 
>manifestations does not mean there are three gods.  There is only one God.

  if i were married and had kids the following analogy would also hold:
i am a teacher, a father and a husband, but there's just one of me.  or it
could go, i am a 2nd-baseman, a cyber-surfer and a clarinet player, but it's
just all me.
---                          
     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?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:38:06 GMT

Kent Sandvik (Hacker) <ksand@apple.com> writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713178249@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca writes:
>>  i can't.  god would be bound by logic if logic could prove him.  god
>>is beyond logic.  to keep from sounding like a cosmic muffin tho, i will
>>say that there are a lot of good reasons to consider his existence: the
>>bible, our imperfect nature, a desire to be closer to the creator, etc.
>>none of these reasons tho, is anybody obligated to hold.  we're all 
>>allowed to disbelieve in god.  free will.  but i can give you personal
>>testimony to my relationship with god in jesus, but empirically you can
>>undermine all of what i would say if you wanted to.  basically i think
>>it comes down to whether you think you need to look for god and delve into
>>the realm of faith.

>Yes, it does not take a genius to realize that scientific and logical
>methods are moot concerning the issue of religions.

>There's however a couple of possible candidates concerning definining
>religious feelings, background and ideas:

>* psychology, to understand how humans have the need to believe in
>higher forces

>* sociology, to realize how people gather around social ideas

>* meme science, how ideas appear, mutate, change and spawn off other
>ideas (where the issue of memes as idea genes is a strong candidate)

>* philosophy, to understand how certain things fit into the overall
>scope of human knowledge

>In most cases we have a trend understanding how religion works, and
>how they appear, change, and in many cases die as well. For more
>comparisons I like to compare religions with art trends, for instance
>in the case of popular music we have good examples of such cult following.

>Anyway, my main point is that we can never state if a higher intelligence
>being exists or not. However we could map out the religious forces, and 
>we could learn to understand why people need religions, and why religions
>are created.

  yeah, i'll agree with all of this.  and my assertion of the life of jesus
in me does not require that i debunk all the above fruits of human
study--because they're valid.  but i do know that all the things i've
learned in studying the above speak to merely the worldly end
of my relationship with the metaphysical god.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:51:38 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <adams.714255871@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
}
}>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
}
}>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
}
}>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
}
}>Gen. 7:19
}
}>That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
}>knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.
}
}Not at all...it says ALL the mountains under ALL the heavens (NIV)...and
}then 7:20 says it went about 20ft higher, and reafirms all the mountains
}being covered...

Ever wonder how it missed the nearby pyramids (that have NOT been submerged
and WERE built before that time).  And why the tibetians and aztecs don't
seem to have noticed it?
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: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:07:23 GMT

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.

You say that what happens to unbelievers is moot.  What if your God
condemns them to hell where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Is hell preferable to being tortured?  Should a woman rather be raped
than go to hell?  Is hell worse than being skinned alive?  Would you
worship a sadistic god who would send an unbeliever to hell as long
as he treated you special?  Would you play god a lulliby to drown
out the screams of those being gassed?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:45:18 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <l8dljlINN6g@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>>Eric Rescorla writes:
>>
>> The Great Pumpkin would be bound by logic if logic could prove him.
>> The Great Pumpkin is beyond logic. To keep from sounding like
>> a cosmic muffin tho, i will say that there are a lot of good reasons
>> to consider his existence: the peanuts cartoons, our imperfect nature,
>> a desire to be closer to the creator, etc.
>> 
>> You can write this precise same passage substituting any one of twenty
>> gods for "God"
>>
>>Of course you could - so what? If the "Great Pumpkin" works for you,
>>great. I suspect that isn't your point though. It seems as if you 
>>wish to say that "god", and by extension, religion is superfluous.

>No, I wish to say simply that the cited evidence for God is no
>better than the evidence that I cited for the "Great Pumpkin".
>Since the author probably doesn't believe in the GP, why does he believe
>in God?

  for me because while there is no evidence for the great pumpkin, there
is the bible, my life experience with jesus and the life experience of
millions of people with jesus that deserve more study than a hypothetical
pumpkin saviour.
---                          
     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?"
From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:16:33 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Keith,
I am looking into the matter of the harlot of Rev 17 currently.  I hope to
post the results of my study of the matter in the near future.  I am busy
with several different things right now so it is hard to say more at this
time.

"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown


--
   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,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:32:45 GMT

In article <25683@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>
>Your logic is backwards.  Science discovers that smoking causes cancer.  So
>we apply previously established moral principles to create an appropriate 
>public policy.  But the fact of "smoking causes cancer" has no influence on
>our moral principles.  Whether smoking causes cancer or not has no bearing
>on how we should treat one another or the moral principles we should
>organise society upon.
>
You are quite right.  There is a moral principle, say, "don't harm others"
that leads us to ban smoking in public places because it causes cancer.
The fact of science influences the particular application of this moral
principle, but does not provide its ultimate ground.  It does, however,
still have an effect upon how we treat one another.  We would not ban
smoking if science demonstrated that it was a health benefit to smoke.

-Tom
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:33:56 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <Bt5A7y.1sG@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>J/C/I versions:
>rev0: Judaism: There is but one God in Israel, the Lord. (But law is complex!)
>rev1: Christianity: Add Jesus as His Son. (Hangup with fish mongers, cool icon)
>rev2: Catholicism: Add Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary!
>rev3: Fundamentalism: Jesus is all we can handle. (even runs on Zilog Z80!)
>rev4: Islam: Add Mohammed and other optional prophets. (386/1G/16MEG min)

>So, my question is, which is the best upgrade? Should one stick with the
>fundamentals of the OT, i.e. Judaism, or go all the way for the latest
>upgrade of Islam, or stay somewhere comfortable inbetween? Or should one take
>the best of all of these related religions as one feel is relevent to the one?

You're stuck in the von Neumann single processor rut here.
Try a parallel architecture - hinduism et al

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|           It all depends on the size of your ham sandwich           |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+