HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:13:00 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Aug26.202508.2666@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>
>Another example:
>From my reading of Matthew, it is obvious that he took OT quotes
>out of context to establish the messiahhood.  If the authors
>are capable of misquoting to gain converts, how authoritative
>should we believe them to be?

Well, it not obvious that Matthew took quotes "out of context."  The
traditional Christian perspective is that the apostles, under the divine
guidance of the Holy Spirit, were ESTABLISHING the proper context for the
OT prophecies concerning Messiah.  Remember, Christians believe that the
gospel of Matthew is just as much "Torah" or teaching, as Leviticus or
Isaiah.  The OT and NT stand on equal footing as far as divine law is
concerned, and one cannot be comprehended without the other.

If this is the case, then they were obviously not misquoting the OT.  No
doubt they were engaging in much the same activity as Jesus engaged in with
clashes with the Pharisees and scribes.  They had developed an intricate
system of interpretation for various OT laws and prophecies.  Jesus came
and exposed the real problem with all this tradition.  He righted the
wrongs of generations of neglect.  The apostles were simple carrying on the
pattern established by Jesus.

>Opinions expressed are mine alone.

Ditto.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:29:02 GMT

fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>======================================================================
>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):

>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT

	You already published this nonsense in alt.atheism . Wasn't that enough?

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:39:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bt8v6I.wq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
>> What is the purpose of prophets? What is the purpose of teachers? What is
> the purpose of dogma? To learn FROM. One can not learn in a vacumn. But,
> learning is not repeating the words of the teacher. Learning is listening
> to the words of the teachers, the teachers as chosen by you, and reflecting
> that dogma into the reality of your self. 

It also causes the great doctrine confusion we have today in the 
Christian world. Too many prophets with personal views -> too many
doctrines. Jesus would weep.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 18:15:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.151857.29955@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch) writes:
>
>I think you're missing the point on overpopulation. People have more kids
>because infant mortality is high.

And the infant mortality rate is high because there are too many people.

>To get a true picture you must include the
>resources consumed per person. When you do this you find that the rich
>North "weighs" more heavily than overpopulated 3rd world countries (now
>the USSR's gone, do they get promoted to 2nd? :-).

Definitely.  Did I say that population control should only be promoted
in 3rd world countries?

>The problem will be
>solved better by reducing our consumption and not screewing the poorer
>countries of the world.

How about doing both?

>This month's "New Internationalist" does a good
>examination of this very topic. Birth control is a convenient cover to
>hide behind - people should have access to it, but it's not the prime
>issue.

This is pernicious nonsense.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless...etc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 03:34:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug22.221155.18701@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> Granted, this post may have a precious little entertainment value,
> but it and its type get us nowhere as a group.  Why mature adults
> resort to such things when handed a keyboard I will never know.  Is
> this why we read the group and post?  For entertainment?  Quite
> frankly folks we are all as good as dead and a serious forum for
> discussing spiritual matters is in order if we can only cooperate and
> take each other seriously.  Not that any of you care, but if we can't
> get our act together I don't know why any serious individuals would
> want to argue their legitimate points with the type above...  I would
> (and will) jump ship if I were you.  Surely you have better things to
> do.

I hope that the republican fundamentalist right would read the statement
above.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Summary: Follow me and be free!
Keywords: The owls are not what they seem.
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:15:24 GMT
	<1992Aug23.174526.27920@oclc.org> <1992Aug24.150050.15223@spdc.ti.com>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <1992Aug24.150050.15223@spdc.ti.com> 
serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>Man struggles to find an easier way to salvation.  If you read the bible
>it clearly states what must be done for salvation. 

Which Bible? I guess you are refering to Luke 14:26?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14836 alt.atheism:15877
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 09:10:43 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


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.  :)
>


I would bet DesCartes was just as intelligent as these brilliant christians you
know, and his proof of god's existence is a perfect example of the circular
thinking of christian "intellectuals".  BTW, since I doubt any in this newsgroup
will meet your friends, have them post their thoughts (NOT SERMONS) here.

I have to agree with the original post.  IMHO, anything that requires man to have
faith (i.e. cease to think), has a net result of being harmful.  Mans
intellectual evolution has been severely retarded by religion.


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Free Will (was: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!))
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:52:31 GMT


(hartigan@ac.dal.ca) and (Steve Adams) are having an interesting
discussion on free will... 

(hartigan@ac.dal.ca) writes:
>Now - watch - you have just acknowledged that "free" will is in fact 
>"conditioned" will. In other words, my so-called "free" choice is really
>an outgrowth of things I have no control over....

> I am just pointing out that 
>"free will" is a completely artificial notion, like "pink unicorn," that
>has no connection to reality. We are what we are, and we act according to 
>what we are. And we cannot control what we are....

> We ALWAYS "freely" choose
>that which seems to us to be the greatest good. And we cannot control 
>what seems to us to be the greatest good. "Free will" is just a very
>persistent myth.


How about testing this as a working definition of "Free (conditioned?) Will"?

When faced with a decision, man is free to choose according to his strongest
inclination at the moment. 

In other words we will ALWAYS "freely" choose what we want most.

Now, are our wants and inclinations are truly free? This seems to me to be 
the question on which the issue really turns.


Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Looking for Article: Falwell criticizes Democrats
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:08:39 GMT

Does anyone happen to recall (as I do, vaguely) a newspaper article, I 
think it was immediately before the Repub. Convention, in 
which Jerry Falwell & two other clergypersons criticized Clinton & 
Gore's use of biblical themes? (Biblical
themes are obviously the exclusive province of Republicans :-) )

I have checked several places, and I can't now verify this news item.

Note: I am aware the more recent complaint about the Repubs., and that's 
not the one I'm looking for. I'm looking for a
complaint about the Dems *by* the Repubs 'court prophets'.

(Even if you post, please e-mail me any response as well, as propagation
problems may interfere with me seeing it).  

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Hey, say what you will about Homer Simpson, but
at least he has a job, owns his own house, and didn't have more
kids than he can feed!"
			Jay Leno

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Organization: gotta be, gotta be, gotta be re-e-a-lity baby!
	<1992Aug28.140525.24067@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:32:36 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.

In article <1992Aug28.140525.24067@engage.pko.dec.com> 
pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
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).


---
Well, I think there are still some bugs. First of, Aramaic is one of the
Semitic languages, in other words not from Babylon where the languages are
cuneiform but from the Semites who were nomadic peoples of the Arabian
peninsula. And it should be obvious that the people of the area that was
Israel did not have very good ties with the Jewish community in Babylon. This
is why they had trouble reading the Hebrew scriptures, because they were out
of touch with Biblical Hebrew, and needed a Greek translation. At this time,
Aramaic was the common spoken language and the language of business and
such things was Greek. I assure you that the language of business and such 
things in the true Jewish community in Babylon was Hebrew. Most followers of
Judaism study the scriptures in Hebrew, not in a translation of the local
language. This knowledge of Hebrew amongst all Jews in the Diaspora was a
major factor in the world trade networks that were later set up. As for Eastern
and Western, these are not very useful terms in the Middle East, which is
and has always been a crossroads between Africa, Europe and Asia.
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:55:27 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Aug21.184642.10789@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>
>It sounds here like you are saying eternal life is just a metaphor.

Oh, no, that's not what I meant!  Eternal Life is simply Christ Himself.
It is the life of God.  At the time when a person receive Jesus Christ,
this life enters his/her being, regenerates him/her, and makes him/her
into a son of God.  This is no metaphor, but reality.

>You don't believe in an afterlife?  No burning hell?  No eternal life?

I do believe in an afterlife.  However, I don't see how the afterlife
has a significant place in the Christian theology, based on the
Biblical prospective.  John Calvin specifically warned against
speculation into afterlife, and I quote from his book "Institutes
of the Christian Religion".

	"Now it is neither lawful nor expedient to inquire too
	 curiously concerning our souls' intermediate state (between
	 death and resurrection) ... Concerning the place, it is no
	 less foolish and futile to inquire, since we know that
	 the soul does not have the same dimension as the body ...
	 Meanwhile, since Scripture everywhere bids us wait in
	 expectation of Christ's (second) coming, and defers until
	 then the crown of glory, let us be content with the limits
	 divinely set for us ..."
	                                      - Institutes 3.25.6

Today's popular concept of "burning hell" is really a leftover from
Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.  It has very little backing from the Bible.

>What kind of Christian are you? :)

Calvinist!  I also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

>: 	Q: What is the purpose of human beings?
>: 	A: The purpose of human beings is to glorify God, and
>: 	   to enjoy Him forever.
>
>Is this the purpose you were referring to above?  God's purpose is to
>have us glorify God?

Yes!  And the notion of 'glory' here refers to the shining expression
of God's life (remember the 'eternal life' we talked about earlier?)
God wants us to receive His life and express the glory of His life.

> ... Aren't 
>there other purposes in life that even an atheist can enjoy?

The answer is a clear 'no', I am sorry to say, and this is why
you need to receive Jesus Christ, who alone can give you the
real meaning of life.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Humanism
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:35:10 GMT


Two comments on the original post: 

perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>People do evil things, humans are not entirely good...
>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.

and 
<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> Jack Carroll writes:
>Evil is, of course, to be found in the actions of humankind, but 
>then so is good...
>That man may be inclined to ignorance and tend to be more or less
>greedy and aggressive would be difficult to deny, but that he is
>inherently evil is too facile a misanthropy.


Does not the frequency and severity of mankinds mistreatment of his 
fellow man cause you to consider that there may, in fact, be something
inherently wrong with the character of humankind?

The fact that there are many who devote time, energy, and resources for the
service of those less fortunate does not necessarily lead to the conclusion
that corruption of character is not present. Were the Carnegie libraries 
an example of altruism or of an old man's attempt to justify the profits from 
years of labor exploitation?

That mankind naturally tends toward selfishness, greed, jealousy, physical 
and verbal violence (visiting any preschool should provide sufficient empirical
evidence) leads me to conclude that there is an inherent character deficiency
in humankind. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying that people are as corrupt
as they can possibly be, just that we are all sufficiently corrupt in our 
natures that the above characteristics are rather inevitable. 


Dave Weaver
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:27:22 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Thank you, Mr. Harvey, for ignoring the remainder of my post, which makes the
following quite clear...

In article <Btpp3z.Cyw@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.172557.24405@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I guess what it boils down to is that one _must_ start with a blind faith.
>
>NO! One _must_ open one's eyes and SEE! One can never see by closing one's eyes.
>Into the light, where things are clearer, not into the dark where one is misled.
>The creator created you with eyes so that you could see, why do you refuse this
>gift and use blinders? The Lord delivered us FROM slavery, why do you cling to 
>the broken shackles?
>
>>Humility is the key! 
>
>Think, use your mind, as the creator intended. That is the key.

I am not talking about closing ones eyes, I am talking about opening ones
spiritual eyes on a trial basis - one is then free to close them again if one
so chooses.  You cannot prove your way to God; knowledge of Him must depend
on faith - which does mature into certainty if given a chance (and the faith
is true).  You can accuse me of all the illogical, irrational things you like
- the fact of the matter is that Christ lives in me!

John M.
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:46:12 GMT

In article <adams.714847671@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}>In article <adams.714835799@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}>}Wrong.  Why couldn't the author have used aproximate measurements?
}
}>OK.  Why couldn't the authors of the rest of the bible be approximately
}>right?
}
}There is a big difference in relating the size/diameter/circumfrence of an
}object and reporting information about God and our relationship with him.

Right.  One is difficult to tell if it is right and the other is trivial.
And the information for something physically accessible is easy to acquire
while the other is....something else.  Want to guess which is which?

}>}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. 
}
}>VERY good.  Sounds a lot like one of the Pope's statements.  A shame that
}>there exists Fundamentalists who seem to confuse what the bible _IS_ with
}>what they _WANT_ it to be..   :-(
}
}I really couldn't care less what the Pope says.  My conclusions have
}nothing to do with his opinion...they are exactly that...my conclusions.

Like _I_ care?  Just interesting that the same conclusion was reached
independently.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:23:33 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-260892164213@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> Jesus said unless you repent (change) you will not see or enter the
|> Kingdom of Heaven.  Repentance or changing one's ways, direction, or
|> thought is common throughout the Bible, as one turns from false gods
|> to the One True God.
|
|Jesus also said that unless you sell all your belongings and join
|him you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Also he said that rich

Kent would you like to quote the passage you reference.  I think you
will find out that this man loved his stuff and so walked away and
didn't enter the Kingdom.

|men can't get to Heaven. It is interesting to observe how the

Also, if you keep reading, YOU will see that Jesus followed this up
with the statement "With man this is impossible, but with God all
things are possible," as he responded to this event and his disciples
question of "then who can be saved."

|words of Jesus could be twisted and avoided, especially here in
|the rich country of USA. In other words some things Jesus said

You noticed, didn't you, that the rich man was not saved.  Man can
not do enough to merit salvation, it is a gift of God, SO NO MAN 
CAN BOAST.

|are important, others are, eh, annoying and better not talk about 
|them.

I just talked about them.  By the way, Kent, it seems you do a pretty good 
job of twisting words all on your own.

|Cheers,
|Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:02:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
> others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
> because I want it to be.

Are you serious???  What in the world are you basing this on?  I have to
say, John, this is *scary* stuff to be hearing from a Christian...

> >3) You say "knowledge of Him must depend on faith".  Faith in what
> >   things?  Just that there is a God, or faith in the inerrancy of
> >   the Bible, that it is giving you the "right knowledge"?  
> 
> That is for you to decide!  What I think doesn't really matter for your
> life...  

Somehow I find it hard to believe you *really* believe that...otherwise
you wouldn't be so hot to do what you're doing...You started this whole
thread by saying there *were* absolutes for Christians, and now you're
saying "that is for you to decide".  Forgive me if I am left totally
confused as to what you are doing..

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
 

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15349 alt.atheism:16304
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:59:09 GMT
Organization: Buttinski's Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Ken Arromdee) writes:

                                        How could you decide to believe
 something based on some grounds other than whether it's true or false?  (For
 that matter, how can one decide to believe something at all?)

There are other grounds for making decisions about empirically
untestable propositions than veracity (which of course is
excluded by definition): pragmatism would be one attitude:
i.e., I may have a notion that may not be empirically testable,
yet for a moment, I will assume it's validity in order to
take the next step and THEN I will assess its usefulness
in a pragmatic way.

Dano