HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:22:43 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Graham Matthews) writes:

 Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
 truth of something without justification. To claim that you can include
 scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.

Well, it's too bad you use such a limited definition of
faith.  I believe others have gotten more mileage out of a 
wider definition.
 
Dano
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14778 talk.abortion:33444 alt.romance.chat:17634 alt.music.enya:784
From: 01sybok@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.romance.chat,alt.music.enya
Subject: Re: Proof that the USMC is ToolOfTheDevil[tm]
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:37:40 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug24.164515.26536@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>, pm3_norr@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Paul Norris) writes:
> Another Endsinuation:
> 
> }"From the halls of Montezuma, to what's left of Tripoli..."  (to the tune of
> }"Ode to Joy")
> 
Oddly enough, this also goes well to the tune of Enya's _Sail Away_
(that's why I added alt.music.enya to the header ;-))

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:35:10 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <l9ll70INNt3q@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
Abd-Allah) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>  
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>  
> >     I would recommend the Dawood translation as a start (published in  
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I would not.  I've picked up his translation and it does not compare to  
other
> author's efforts.  Muhammad Asad's translation is far better, and it's
> around ten bucks.  Free if you ask me to send a copy.  Asad is a known
> scholar of Islam: Dawood is not.  Is knowledge of Greek the only
> prerequisite for publishing a translation the Bible?
> 
> Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

     I didn't mean to imply that John should read Dawood's _over_ Asad's;  
I was only offering my recommendation as a starting point. If you can  
provide John with a free copy of Asad's translation, I hope he takes you  
up on it. Free beats $5.95 any day. :-) 

     I agree that one needs more than fluency in the original language to  
publish a good translation of the Gospel or the Koran. I would think that  
one would constantly be looking at how other people translated particular  
words or expressions, and would also be looking at a few textual  
commentaries to help resolve ambiguities. In defense of Dawood, he did do  
a complete revision of his earlier translation (1956), and claims to have  
followed the commentaries of Al-Zamakhshari, Al-Baidawi, and Al-Jalalayn.  
Dawood's translation _is_ pretty bare of footer notes and commentary, but  
that's not necessarily bad. Dawood did this deliberately, because "it is  
the text itself that matters; and the reader should be allowed to approach  
it with a free and unprejudiced mind." (p. 4) I agree, so onward to your  
response to Robert Weiss's post "Islamic stories".

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15193 alt.atheism:16170
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:50:17 GMT

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.

---                          
     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: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2518@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes...
>In article <1992Sep1.180559.9082@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
> 
>That was not my point at all.  My point was the hypocrisy of Muslim nations
>demanding that Christian nations exert influence against other Christian
>nations, while Muslim nations sit on their hands when neighboring Muslim
>nations commit atrocities against Christians and other religious or ethnic
>minorities.  Iran was an excellent example.

	Bosnia had said at first that the Muslim nations wouldn't
	need to help. They thought Europe would help. (this is from NPR)
	
	Maybe I missed the beginning of this discussion, but what 
	example, using Iran, are you talking about?

>Oh, I agree that Christians ought to speak out and do everything we can to
>fix the problems in the former Yuroslavia.  Our Christian faith compels us
>to speak for the underdog in an unjust situation.  But I guess Muslims have no
>similar obligation.  That must be the difference between the religion of
>Christ and the religion of Mohammad.

	You are a hypocrite to your faith when you judge Muslim countries
	on things you don't know (i.e "I guess..."). 

	Muhammad has said that if a Muslim sees something wrong he must 
	first correct it with his hands, if he can not do that he must 
	correct it with his voice, and if he can not do that he must hate 
	it in his heart, and that is the weakest of faith.

	Maybe you have learned something, huh? Did you stop and think
	about the fact that no "Islamic" country is ruled by Islam totally.
	Believe me, if there was just one, the Muslims in Bosnia would 
	have their freedom. Since, in most "Islamic" countries the people 
	have little say, How can you expect them to handle the Bosnia 
	situation completely?

>Tom Albrecht

	Ismail.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:48:52 GMT
Organization: alt.ketchup survivors
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

 (Young Jeff) wrote:
 >Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
 >to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
 >that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
 >fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
 >than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
 >passing the buck on this?
 
 (Paul Harvey) replies:
 The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
 should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
 good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
 for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's

Since it was the creator's intent, the creator is responsible.
Although Adam & Eve may have thought they had "free will", from
god's point of view, they didn't have since he was omniscent.

He could have given them the gift of knowledge without
exacting any price whatsoever, yet as he gave, he took away.
This could be called capricious behavior.

Dano
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15547 alt.atheism:16468
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:51:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <adams.715524464@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>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?
>
>I hate to tell you, but denominationally (and within denominations) you
>will find widely varying theology.
>
> -Steve

(SIGH!)  I have already accepted your challenge.  I have been a member
of several churches.  I have studied most of the world's major
religions, and many minor ones.  I have had numerous discussions
with proponents of these religions.  I have read many theologians
who are not necessarily associated with any specific religion
(and some who are).

My point is not that these religions agree with each other;
such a statement is patently silly (take that, B'hai's!).
I thought we were discussing the question of faith,
a.k.a. blind faith.  And the point that I and others have
posted, that the major religions ultimately have one or
more beliefs which are to be held by faith regardless of
all contrary evidence, still stands.  What these beliefs
are is not the question (here).

BTW, the one religion I joind for a while which comes closest
to rejecting this type of faith was the Unitarian/Universalist.
I was amazed at the variety of beliefs which were held by
members of this group.  The common glue which held the group
together seemed to be an attitude rather than a profession 
of faith.  A look at the membership numbers of U/U's, however,
shows that this slightly more humane approach to 
belief and ethics is not likely to catch on in a world
dominated by R.C., Islam, et.al.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What Questions do folks feel must be answered?
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:11:26 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:

>Folks:

>Post me a list of questions that you feel must be answered in order to
>decide on the validity of any religion.

>Thanks.
>Ismail

	My personal selection:

	1.	How can this religion benefit to the human being in the 
		sense of self-improvement, advancement and betterment?

	2.	How can this religion prevent people from "misusing" it?
		"Misuse" meantalk llm39562
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 09:40:32 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <graham.715148792@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(Paul Harvey) writes:
>>me writes:
>>Faith is believing something as possibly true, but always questioning its
>>validity and not following it blindly. 

>I would not call this "faith". You seem to be endowing faith with an
>air of scepticism - as far as I can see this is a contradiction in
>terms.

>Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
>truth of something without justification. To claim that you can include
>scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.

I think we're arguing semanitcs, Graham.

What Paul would call "faith," you might call "assumptions."

The thing is, all assumptions are, essentially, "belief in the
[absolute] truth of something without justification."  We might claim
that the "justification" is that our assumptions seem to be
consistent, but that really isn't much of a justification that they
are true.

I think the problem is over the word "absolute."  That is, Paul seems
to be defining "blind faith" as "belief in the *absolute* truth" while
defining "faith" as "belief in the truth."

We all carry a certain set of "assumptions" or "axioms" with us.  That
we believe these things to be true indicates some flavor of "faith."
That is, we don't have a deductive reason for believing them to be
true...but they seem to work, so we accept them as true.

I think Paul is defining "blind faith" to mean that if something were
to show one of those assumptions to be wrong, a person with blind
faith in that assumption would try to modify the conflicting data
("It's a lie!"  "It's misinterpreted!") rather than adjust the
assumption.

I think Paul is defining "faith" as simply "something that is assumed
true only because it appears to be true...not because it can be proven
so."

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Pi in the Bible
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:24:48 GMT

bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.140833.202592@uctvax.uct.ac.za>
>fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> > Pi in the Bible
> > ---------------
> > 1 Kings 7:23 = 
> > "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from
> > rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure
> > around it." (NIV)
> > 
> > This makes:
> >  diameter = 10
> >  circumference = 30
> > 
> > Since all the figures in the text are to the nearest whole cubit,
>
>Is this stated anywhere or are we meant to infer this?

No, it is not stated, but it is a reasonable assumption.  It is also possible
that the diameter was measured across the upper rim while the circumference
was measured below that where it may have been narrower (if I remember
correctly, it is stated in a couple of verses later that it is shaped somewhat
like a lily blossom which is larger at the very tip than slightly below - which
would make measuring circumference at the actual rim quite difficult).

I wrote a paper on this subject a couple of years ago ... if anyone would
like a copy (it's in Mac MSWord format), I'd be happy to e-mail it (or post
it if there is interest).


Erik A. Johnson        \    Internet: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu     \       |
------------------------\    AmericaOnline: ErikAJ                   \    --+--
Graduate Student         \--------------------------------------------\     |
Aero/Astro Engineering    \  "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and    \    |
University of Illinois at  \  the truth, and the life; no one comes to  \   |
   Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)  \  the Father except through me.'" (Jn14:6)  \
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: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:29:20 GMT


>In article <sbuckley.714968041@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
>> brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
>> we do on faith alone.  and i don't say my view is right because it
>> comes from me or is somehow a subset of me, but rather *because* it 
>> is eternal, separate and objective.

>And I state that our views are based on pre-knowledge obtained by
>our brains, and that objectivity is a myth. I agree that we can't 
>state what is right or wrong. While you state you could. And my statements
>are in contradiction with yours. Which evidently shows that your views
>are not objective and universal, rather views created by your mind.

  wrong.  absolute truth can exist.  2+2=4 and it is true.  you can
make statements that contradict this, but this does not necessarily
mean 2+2=4 isn't objective or universal.  neither you nor i can show
that god being knowable in the bible and his truths being absolute
are objectively verifiable according to the same means we can prove 2+2=4.
so you cannot say that i'm wrong.  i think i'm right and i'm going to
continue to live based on god existing and his being knowable in the
bible. 

>Which leads to God and empiricism. An impossible task as long as 
>our brains are part of the view creation. Faith seems to be your
>key that opens the door to objectivity. However, I could use
>my own key and lock the door because the faith in non-objective
>observations is a pretty strong argument. I have faith in that
>most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
>truth would create a *universal* religion.

  actually, a universal truth would assert itself as applicable to all,
eternal and consistent over time.  a universal truth would now have
to be different for everyone/every culture.  i sought a truth that
is applicable to all, eternal and consistent over time.  these are
the characteristics of eternal god.  i found him in jesus.

---                          
     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,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:48:36 GMT

Eric Sieferman writes:

>If "believed and be saved" is the motto, I must be saved
>because I believed.

>Knowing that one is going to have eternal happiness
>sure relieves a lot of contemporary stress (not!)


  it's good that you believe.  but does it make any difference in your
life?  jesus won't give me life without suffering on a silver platter.
but he does give me inner peace [and many other things] that help me
live a better life and contribute to this world.  these are the fruits
of jesus' presence.

---                          
     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
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:58:01 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.714837075@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>From a paper I wrote for a theology class:
>>I. In the Beginning: The Edenic Covenant
>>   What is Genesis trying to tell us in the story of creation found in
>>verses 1:1-2:3?  The events described demonstrate God's direct action in
>>creation of the universe, and man with it.  Clearly, the intent of the
>>redactor is to establish the Sovereignty of God and His control over all
>>creation.  It also explains and justifies God's right to do as He pleases
>>with His creation.  This conclusion is inescapable irrespective of whether
>>or not we take a literal view of creation.

>It is amazing what people attach the word "clearly" to.

Hey, it was clear to me! ;-)  That's why it says 'clearly'!

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject:  science vs bible
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.122857.12766@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
}   True scientific Biblical study (fundamentalist) doesn't try to reconcile the
}Bible to Science but science to the Bible (not by fudging results either).
}Both camps (evolution vs creation) are guilty at times of not being objective
}(yes that includes me), their worldview effects what conclusion is made about
}the eveidence 

The problem with that is that there appears to be a tendency, as described
by C. Wingate last year, to discard/ignore the science if it doesn't happen
to agree with the bible.  In particular, to "interpret" direct observables
through prayer (?) giving "divine inspiration" precidence to direct
observation.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<la7b84INN75s@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<1992Sep1.222830.20839@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:18:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.222830.20839@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>I believe the premise is wrong here.  The Adam & Eve "thang" really wasn't
>over a piece of fruit nor was it over the attainment of the knowledge of 
>good and evil.  It was over whether Adam and Eve would obey or disobey 
>God.  God gave them a clear order.  Man disobeyed God.  Nobody forced
>Eve to take the bite.  What enticed Eve?  What made her bite?  That's
>the interesting story.  When you discover that, then you know the answer
>to why man has been screwing himself over for millenia.

Eve was not a human being, she did not have knowledge of good and bad. 
She ate the fruit at her own initiative to become a human being and in being 
born was delivered from the place of gestation, Eden. No sin, no crime, no
punishment, just Homo sapiens sapiens all along. And the answer for why
man has been screwing himself over for millenia? Misinterpretation. The
belief that flesh is bad, that humanism is evil, that earth is Hell. We are
not seperated from the Lord's kingdom by time, but by perception. Heaven is
right here, right now, only most don't see it. Hell is not seeing it.

>P.S.   What do Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?

Absolutely nothing! Satan is an illusion of the field of opposites, Eve was
a proto-human lacking knowledge of good and bad and Shirley MacLaine is 100%
Homo sapiens sapiens. The misogynist stuff is misguided. Man can not live by
God alone. Word to the Mother!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:45:22 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>>paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg) writes:
>>>If God is allmighty, can he then create a boulder so larger he cant lift it ?

>In article <adams.714666392@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>No, because this is a logical impossibilty....and the question has no
>>meaning...no different than you creating a 'square' circle.

>Hmm, I guess your God is not so allmighty and powerful then. My God can
>create a 'square' circle and she would call it an n-sided polygon. My
>God is allmighty and can do anything, including create a boulder so
>large that she couldn't lift it. It must be somewhat of a disappointment
>having a God who is not allmighty. :::B^}

In case one, your god is not creating a circle.  She is creating an n-sided
polygon.

In case two, your god is not almighty, for there now exists a boulder which
she is unable to lift.  

Not very powerfull....

 -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