HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: SLAVERY [was: Faith vs. Reason]
Date: 31 Aug 1992 09:58:50 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>   Paul, a BOND-SERVANT of Christ Jesus... (Romans 1:1a, NASB, E.A.)

An interesting footnote to the "Slave[*] of Christ Discussion".  In a paper
by Helmut Koester, he describes to a series of inscriptions in which a
number of slaves had themselves declared "Slaves of Hera".  This had a very
precise, technical legal implication: if you were a slave to one master
--even, as in this case, to a goddess-- you could _not_ be the slave of
another master.  So, in short, by having oneself declared to be such a
slave, one could no longer be enslaved by anyone else; certainly no one
human.

Moreover, the formulations of these inscriptions very close to some of
those used by Paul.

(I'm quoting this from memory.   When I get home I'll try to find the exact
reference.) 

Now, I'm not sure it's clear exactly how one went about attaining this
status.  Nor is it clear that this is precisely what Paul had in mind
--although it's a tantalizing suggestion.  However, it is clear from Paul's
letters that the early Church (at least in the Hellenistic community) had a
very large following among the slave classes (indeed, many of the early
leaders were slave).  In any case, _something_ made early Christianity
attractive to these Slaves.

   [* It's important to note that "Slave" _is_ the correct term here.  Many
      (most?) modern translations attempt to soften term to, say,
      "servant".  But "Slave" is by far the most accurate rendering.]

NICHAEL                                                                 __
nichael@bbn.com  --                               Be as Passers-by.  -- IS
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:29:59 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi

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

>KJV: 1 Kings 7:23:
>And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it
>WAS round all about, and his height WAS five cubits: and a line of
>thirty cubits did compass it round about.

>JPS: 1 Kings 7:23: [ISBN:0-8276-0252-9]
>Then he made the tank(1) of cast metal, 10 cubits across from brim to
>brim, completely round; it was 5 cubits high, and it measured 30 cubits
>in circumference.
>(1) Lit. "belly"; exact force of Heb. uncertain

NRSV says 'A line of 30 cubits would encircle it completely'.  

>Notice once again the translation problems the KJV has. The key here is
>that a "completely round" circle of diameter or distance from brim to
>brim of 10 cubits would have a circumference of 31.415926... , not 30
>cubits. This is Pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and
>it is a unit-less constant, so the exact size of cubit makes no
>difference, it could just as well be feet or meters or whatever. And so
>we have just one example of many where the words of the Bible are false,
>thus the Bible is not 100% true. But most of us already know that, the
>Bible is in fact a myth. Still a good myth, nonetheless. But not
>factual.

Wrong.  Why couldn't the author have used aproximate measurements?  I'd say
that since the error is 1.41/30.00 (or less than 5% error).  This isn't
exactly what I'd call an error.  That assumes that the measurements are
reported EXACTLY.  In fact, if the circumfrence were 30.4, and the diameter 
were only 9.7, the error in each measurement would be less than 3%.  In each 
case, the number was rounded (to 30 and 10 respectively).

Not exactly earth shattering.  

One of the local skeptics sent me a list of supposed Biblical errors and
inconsistancies.  In looking through the more than 1800 lines I found so
many 'proof texts' that if a Christian tried to use them, they'd be creamed
by the usual gang around here.

The Bible is 100% accurate in what it claims to be : a representation of
man's state and dealings with God.  It isn't a science book, a math book,
or a geometry book.  It is inspired, and it is never wrong on the topic it
addresses. 

 -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: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:05:25 GMT

In article <Btnqzw.n25@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
> ... Actually, at the time of Jesus, the
>center of Judaism was in Babylon, so it's more correct to speak of Jesus as
>being a Hellenistic Jew, if that much. He spoke Aramaic, of course.

This is only 50% correct.  It is true that at the time of Jesus, the
center of learning of Judaism was in Babylon, but the Jews in Judea,
being the descendents of those who came back from the Babylonian exile,
had very close cultural ties with the Jewish community in Babylon.
Galilee had a bit more of the Hellenistic influence than Judea.
But even so, Jews in Galilee, Judea, and Babylon all belonged to
what the historians call "Eastern Dispersion", as opposed to the
Hellenistic Jews, who were the "Western Dispersion".  The common
langusge of the "Eastern Dispersion" was Aramaic, which was derived
from Chaldean (Babylonian).

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:51:10 GMT
 <l9nblkINNo4i@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug26.193642.10181@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

I am editing this heavily to remove some extra (in my opinion) verbage.  I
believe it still accurately reflects Steve Gross' postion.  If not, I'm
sure he'll correct me! ;-)

>It is my belief that God created everything good, and pure.  

>He did, however,
>create Lucipher with the intelligence and the emotions necessary to
>manifest evil.

>Satan is therefore the origin of evil.  

I broke thse up into three statements.  Let me draw a pictogram here:

      creates               manifests
GOD---------------->Satan--------------->Evil

Ok.  Now, you postulate that Satan created Evil, and God created Satan
with the ability to manifest evil.  This makes the creation of evil
dependant on the attributes God gave to Lucifer/Satan at creation.  Plain
and simple!  There is a direct cause/effect relationship of God creating 
Satan/Lucifer with the intelligence and emotion to manifest evil.

>A plausible reasoning don't you think?  
No, I dont!

>In any case, I have proven that God doesn't HAVE to be responsible for 
>anything.  
But He must, by definition be responsible for EVERYTHING!  Remember, He is
omnipotent (all-powerful), and created everything ex-nihilo (out of nothing)!

>If he is or not, I cannot tell.  
But by your definition he must be!

>When I get to heaven, perhaps we will continue this conversation with more 
>knowlege.
At that point, none of us will care...;-)
--
 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: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:17:29 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA


In talk.religion.misc rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu writes:

>I'm not sure if the theme has been posted - I checked backwards and
>didn't seem to find anything, so I wanted to put in my thoughts.

>The theme of Christianity is Jesus the Christ - his fortelling, life, 
>works, Deity, death for our sin payment, bodily resurrection, assention, 
>and future return.  As the Apostle Paul put it in I Cor 15, for without 
>Christ and his resurection we (Christians) are of all men most miserable.

Why?  Without "Christ" and his "resurrection", you wouldn't exist, ergo you
wouldn't be any more or less miserable than anyone else.

>There is a lot of side issues, but the above is the essence.  We are
>encouraged to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.  We
>are predestined to be conformed into the likeness of Jesus the Christ.
>Through Jesus we have been given everything we need for life and godliness.

Have a nice conforming, predetermined life, then.  The government will be very
happy with you, citizen.

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts

>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

I've seen these things on people's lawns... ...ever thought of using ANSI
sequences to colorize them? :)

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:42:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714076351@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   and i do not offer empirical proof of jesus existence.  what i am saying
> is that there is more relevant data than what is bounded by empirical
> parameters.  but you can just conclude that i'm dancing around the issue.

True, Philip K. Dick was specialized in creating stories where
there was more to reality than empirical data. For instance
universes based on personal introspection. He also provided
enough relevant *data* to justify his creations. 

Cheers,
Kent

---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:28:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug16.231031.16025@sdf.lonestar.org>,
corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) wrote:
> According to my understanding as a young spry Jehovah's Witness,
> before the flood it never had rained on the earth.  That's why the
> people ridiculed Noah for preaching a global deluge.  Now.  The
> world was also much flatter at the time, the highest mountains not
> being the same height as they are today.  That's how all the water
> could cover the whole earth.

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.

Cheers,
Kent
From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 2 Sep 1992 09:01:03 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


First, I don't see why the people against overpopulation care.  I'm guessing that
they are all from the U.S., which is barely affected by overpopulation, domestic
or foreign.

Secondly, if you think foreign overpopulation is hurting the environment, that
damage is nothing compared to the damage done by industrialized nations with 
low population growth.  There are much more important things to bitch about that
foreign overpopulation in an environmental light.

Third, you're probably going to get your wish, because aids will devistate the
3rd world.

Jon Newton
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14782 alt.atheism:15834
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 27 Aug 1992 23:56:38 GMT
Organization: Your Name Here
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Douglas Graham) writes:

 Our current environmental crisis is due largely because there are too damn
 many people.  Energy shortages will probably become critical soon.  Hell,
 we just had a war over oil.  Acid rain.  Global warming.  Ozone holes.
 Polluted air and water.  Mass extinctions of other species.  Devastated
 rain forests.  etc. etc. etc.  All caused by the cancer which is our
 species.
 
That's one perspective.

Another is that although there are many people, there already
exists enough food to feed them all and space to house them. 

This perspective would say that the problem lies in the
distribution of resources.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:22:57 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce.  After the endless
>repetition that I mentioned above, people begin to believe whatever
>it was that was repeated.  After that, they use their brain backwards.
>They start with whatever they've been indoctrinated with, and then
>concoct reasons for believing it.  Often they go to absurd lengths
>to justify their preconceived conclusions.  And yes, even intelligent
>scholars can be, and often are, reduced to this.  This backwards mode
>of "thinking" pollutes all our lives, and will probably prove fatal to
>our species.  It's unfortunate, because I think that we do have reasonably
>sound hardware, it's just that we never learned how to employ it properly.

  this is quite a damning slag at a whole bunch of highly educated
reasonable people.  i'd like to see you defend it in front of some
christian ph.d.'s i know.  :)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:41:23 GMT
 <adams.714663184@spssig> <fRJlrrM@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714837075@spssig> 
 <BtLvHF.Cs6@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714863951@spssig> <BtM5JD.F23@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

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

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

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

>Oh, I see, basic Christian exegesis of Genesis 2:15. I should have known. My
>my, exegesis, what a fancy word you have there. 
In theology studies (hey, that's where I wrote the paper) that is the proper 
word for exposition of text.

>And silly me, I thought
>Genesis 2:15 just says that there will be enmity between man and snake and
>and that the snake, who started all the trouble, will bite at the heels of man 
>and man in turn will crush the snakes head. I guess this snake is not what it
>seems. 
Bingo.  It is Satan.  See Rev 12:9 & 20:2. And Romans 16:20, as I said 
before.  I didn't just make this up.  

>I guess I really need to get some of this Christian exegesis to see 
>what's really going on. This scripture stuff is so complicated and full of 
>hidden and secret meaning, isn't it? Jah! ... Ras TafarI!
No secret and hidden, but it does certainyl use allegory, metaphor,
allusion, similes, poetry, parables, etc, etc.

 -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: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 08:14:50 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Why Ken included my entire post only to go off on a tangent is beyond me.
I deleted it.

<exukjb.107.715033652@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
><9j-nw3g.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>In article <lharris.2@upei.ca> lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) writes:
...
>I hate to break in on this discussion of God, freedom, and evil, but it 
>happens to be my specialty and I can't resist.  It commonly agreed, by 

Not agreed to be me.

>theologians and atheologians alike, that a being's "inability" to do 
>"tasks" whose descriptions are self-contradictorys is no real inability.  My 
>inability to draw a triangle on the exam may indicate my lack of geometrical 
>skill, but my inability to draw a square triangle does not indicate any 
>such lack. 

*You* aren't a supposed omnipotent being.

>           The problem of the paradoxical stone too heavy for an omnipotent 
>being to lift is susceptible of a similar analysis--the task it proposes 
>cannot be coherently described, which leaves the traditional doctrine of 
>divine omnipotence pretty much intact.

Nope.  You are applying human limitations on a being that supposely
created the entire universe in *one* of his days.

>However, it is possible to dispute whether such-and-such a thing or state of 
>affairs is logically impossible.  Such disputes are the stock in trade of 
>philosophers.  And there is much dispute over whether God can create free 
>agents who nevertheless always choose the good.  If "create free agents who 
>always choose rightly" does not incorporate some kind of logical mistake, 
>then it follows that God should have created such agents.  But he obviously 
>has not.

Which means that god does not exist.

>ARGUMENT FOR "GOD COULD HAVE CREATED FREE AGENTS WHO ALWAYS CHOOSE THE GOOD"
>
>	1. Free agents sometimes choose the good.
>	2. So if its logically possible for agents to freely 
>	   choose the good on one or several ocassions,
> 	3. Then, it is logically possible for agents freely to 
>	   choose the good on every ocassion. 
>
>But if 3 is true, God was not then faced with the alternative: create 
>mindless but perfectly ethical automata (no moral evil in the universe) OR 
>create ethically responsible and free persons who cannot be prevented from 
>bringing about evil.  

Ken, would you expect this god to be limited by human intelligence?  If
this god were no better than a human in intellectual capacity then I agree
with you that there were/are *many* things beyond his ability.  But the
"commonly agreed" upon description of an omnipotent being is a being that
can do *anything*.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: buddhist fundies?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:30:06 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes

>Besides on this net alone, I can find you
[ buncha other 'ists ]
>a Buddhist

>...who can all prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their religion
>is the One True Faith. 

Not to say that buddhism doesn't get its share of fanatics, but which
net.buddhist has made such a claim? 'Twould be an odd thing for most
buddhists to declare, so my curiousity is bestirred. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:32:00 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Sep1.180559.9082@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>peacefully. The actions of the Iranian government towards non-Muslims  
>cannot be used as an excuse to justify, condone, or be indifferent to the  
>killing in Bosnia.

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.

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.

  For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a
  mighty, and a terrible, which regards not persons, nor takes reward:
  He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loves the
  stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
  Love you therefore the stranger: for you were strangers in the land of
  Egypt.  (Deut. 10:17-19)

  You have heard that it hath been said, You shalt love thy neighbour, and
  hate your enemy.
  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
  to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
  persecute you;
  That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
  makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the
  just and on the unjust.  (Matt. 5:43-45)

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:06:07 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714784977@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>>to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce.  After the endless
>>repetition that I mentioned above, people begin to believe whatever
>>it was that was repeated.  After that, they use their brain backwards.
>>They start with whatever they've been indoctrinated with, and then
>>concoct reasons for believing it.  Often they go to absurd lengths
>>to justify their preconceived conclusions.  And yes, even intelligent
>>scholars can be, and often are, reduced to this.  This backwards mode
>>of "thinking" pollutes all our lives, and will probably prove fatal to
>>our species.  It's unfortunate, because I think that we do have reasonably
>>sound hardware, it's just that we never learned how to employ it properly.
>
>  this is quite a damning slag at a whole bunch of highly educated
>reasonable people.  i'd like to see you defend it in front of some
>christian ph.d.'s i know.  :)

Sounds good.  I'd prefer to do it over the net rather than in person,
because that way I have time to think.  Maybe we should get some Islamic
scholars and some Jewish scholars and some Mormon scholars and (I'm
guessing that your friends are Protestant) some Catholic scholars and
some Hindu scholars and some Sikh scholars and some Moonie scholars
and some Scientologist scholars and whoever else we can think to invite.
We'll treat the net to a bullshit fest the likes of which they've never
seen before. :-)
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15122 alt.atheism:16095