HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Organization: so it burned!
	<1992Sep4.151726.19159@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:07:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.213024.9238@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00jdbecktel@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
In file 21555 you are referring to God as a she so you say. WRONG.... It says
in Genesis that God created man in his own image, so how can God be a woman 
when it says otherwise in the Bible.                          

In article <1992Sep4.151726.19159@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
Actually, it says that "God created man in his own image, male and
female created he them." This has been a source of much dispute, and
certainly does not produce the clear answer you seek.

---
You meant to say, "... does not produce the clear IMAGE you seek." Am I
right?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:27:29 GMT
Summary: keep the illusion, fear of losing control

In article <2476@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> In article <Aug.25.04.18.13.1992.20188@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> >
> >I don't understand.  Why can the deity of Christ only be established
> >using an inerrant source of information?  My evaluation is that the NT
> >gives us a substantially accurate view of what Jesus taught, and of
> >the critical events of his life: his death and resurrection.  I don't
> >see what inerrancy would add to that.  ...
> 
> What about the folks who are part of the so-called Jesus Project, who have
> been telling us that much (most?) of the gospels are not the words of
> Jesus, and therefore not historically accurate?

IMO, so what of it? No matter how much they tell you or I, do you
or I believe it? Of course not. These people are just as hazed as
the rest of us:-) You say inerrant, they say Not. And the games
continue as always. 
> 
> It seems to me that as soon as you admit error, it becomes very difficult,
> 2000 years removed from the actual events, to decide which statements about
> Christ and His ministry are true and which are not.  If you admit to error

It seems the only point which keeps the illusion alive is the lack
of admission. What power does the lack of admission carry on it's
own? if the great theologians admit to error, then the world becomes
one big magnificent Babylon? I have a harder time believing that
than the sacrifice of say, some tribe telling me if they don't sacrifice
a <<whatever>> every year at the exact same time, the sun will no longer
rise and all life will cease.

> in the NT, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the supernatural
> events, i.e., the resurrection.  If you admit to error in the NT, the an

This is a very real possibility for those who hinge their faith
on the words of some great theologian. As for the rest of people,
many have a much deeper rock to place their faith on, which in
turn reinforces the words pointing to the events of the resurrection.

> objective basis for faith disappears, and true faith soon disappears as
> well.  The gospel narratives becomes just so much whimsy, tossed about
> by the lastest pontifications from higher critical blowhards and others
> in the theological establishment.

So, nothing would have changed at all, just the illusion is
admitted openly? Might as well tie one's faith to the shroud
of Turin?

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@iam.unibe.ch (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Humanism (was Re: This is SO pointless...)
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:13:55 GMT


(Paul Harvey) writes:

>Ah secular humanists...
>...OK, what about humanists? Well that one is pretty obvious, isn't it? 
>I mean after all we are all humans and so of course we are also humanists, 
>aren't we? Or do we think that humans are evil? 

Do we think that humanity is evil?
Lets look around a little. Ethnic groups are slaughtering each other in the 
Balkans, a quarter of more of the Somalian people may starve due to drought and
government policy in the midst of a civil war. Racial hatred boils in Palestine,
Iraq suppresses its Shiites and Kurds. Violent crime in the United States is 
nearly of epidemic proportions. Yes, I believe we can assert that humanity is
more than a bit evil. I'm sure concentration camp survivors would be glad to
know that man is basically good. How hard is it to locate the latest atrocity?

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

Not all humans are humanists. I, for one, do not share your faith in the inherent 
goodness of mankind. Take off the rose colored glasses when you look at the world.


Dave Weaver
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14898 alt.atheism:15930
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:51:04 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <l9nh7fINNo9e@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
>Without "faith" in the unknown and the scarcely believeable,
>it is unlikely "science" would have progressed as far as it
>has.

Please explain.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:11:15 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <l9q98gINNrmg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>Once again, it seems you have failed to address the
>rebuttal, for according to your theology:
>
>     god created everything
>     god knows everything past, present, and future
>     god created a satan he knew would "turn evil"
>     thus, god created evil.
>
>IMO, you have yet to show any holes in this logic.

Is there a problem with this logic?
-- 
Good-day!

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:38:09 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Could you then justify why I don't see millions of deamons jumping 
>around my keyboard, directing my fingers to write common sense
>arguments? If someone says I'm blind because I follow the words
>of Thomas Paine, then I'm frankly speaking honoured.

>If dark forces urges me to think logically about things in the world,
>then I don't mind that dark forces are using my small brain -- quite
>the contrary.

	No, I think you just believe everything the big brother wants you to. 
	You think your logic is revolutionary, but you don't know how many 
	people think the same way you do. Your highest moments in your life are,
	when someone notices your smartness. 

	1. Cor. 2:14. Read it. 

	Don't worry ! I used to be a smartie, until I found the true wisdom.

Take it with loose wrists, man !
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:54:56 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <la7e85INNfcd@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Soopergenius) writes:
>In article <7#jnv4l.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <l9qs7kINNbvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
>>>earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
>>>the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is 
>>>enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
>>>American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
>>>world population.
>
>>	Are there really people stupid enough to pay attention to such
>>tripe? Geez.
>
>>	Food supply is not a constant.
>
>Are you really this stupid, or are you just deliberatly being an ass? 

	Ah. I see at least one person really _is_ that stupid.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14989 alt.atheism:15994
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:21:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug27.100021.89898@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.015950.11293@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>
>> Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>> of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>> planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>> could manage it in a humane manner.  How do you suppose that opposition
>> to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?  Why
>> was overpopulation not even on the table at the Rio conference?
>

What's the big worry?  Its clear that we are over grazing the Earth
just as Nature (evolution, darwin, etc.) dictate we should.  Maybe we
humans are more intelligent, but its not clear that we are
collectively intelligent enough to stop and we will eventually die off
as a species to be replaced by a more intelligent one (perhaps by some
jump in human evolution in some remote part of the world or some other
creature that we are currently trying to educate!).  Of course, there
is no guarantee that the new king of the hill will be more
intelligent.
-- 
Good-day!

Mark

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 23:17:49 GMT

In article <92jn0z=.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <la7e85INNfcd@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Soopergenius) writes:
>>In article <7#jnv4l.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>>In article <l9qs7kINNbvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>>Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
>>>>earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
>>>>the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is 
>>>>enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
>>>>American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
>>>>world population.
>>
>>>	Are there really people stupid enough to pay attention to such
>>>tripe? Geez.
>>
>>>	Food supply is not a constant.
>>
>>Are you really this stupid, or are you just deliberatly being an ass? 
>
>	Ah. I see at least one person really _is_ that stupid.

Looks like a roundabout way of answering in the affirmative to both
parts of Eric's question.  Would you care to expand on your great
pearl of wisdom Kenn (food supply is not a constant), or is that
supposed to be enough of an in-depth analsis to keep us all happy?
And why do you keep deleting the bits where Eric explains that he
is well aware that food supply is not a constant, but that the curve
is headed in the wrong direction?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:14:24 GMT

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

[I wrote]
>>Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
>>planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
>>will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
>>exist regardless of the actions of humans.

>That's extremely astute of you Gregg.  You have my deepest apologies
>for giving you the impression that I meant actual vaporization of
>the planet.

Accepted.

>  I should have said "destroy all life on the planet".

If you're going to continue to take jabs at Christianity, expect to be
taken literally each time.

>>>How do you suppose that opposition
>>>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>>
>>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>>control population as well as anything mentioned above.

>Yes, and if we all stopped eating, there wouldn't be a food problem.

(Of course, we need food to live.  The same is not true of sex.)

>>(Disclaimer:
>>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>>understand differing points of view.)

>Well, forgive me for being so blind.

This blindness is what some other posters have been trying to point
out to you this week.  You have my forgiveness.  "Go and sin no more."

>  It doesn't really matter that
>the population is growing out of control as long as those who are
>responsible for it keep chanting "abstinence", is that right?

No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  I explained how they can in
priciple.  In practice, of course, the combination is a failure,
because something about humans makes abstinence difficult even for
those who try it.  I will not defend this practice other than to say
that it is rational.  Rational, but not practical.

>Gregg, you know and I know that there are infinitely better solutions
>to the population problem, right?

Yes.

>  So don't you think I'm justified
>in saying that those who seek to prevent the implementation of those
>vastly superior solutions seem to want to destroy life on the planet?

No, I do not.  I think I can understand the point of view of those who
choose this solution.  I can see their reasoning; it is rational.
Their point of view does not seem to be one of wanting to destroy life
on the planet, rather they seem to be interested in preserving it.
They think their method is superior.  We disagree.  But none of us
intends to purposefully destroy human life.  If you have now taken off
your blinders to schools of though other than your own, you may begin
to see this.
-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:24:15 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.714855255@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <lharris.2@upei.ca>, lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) wrote:
>> >>      Here you are right - mostly.  Evil was not an unavoidable aspect of 
>> >> creation. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, as 
>> >> long as that universe does not include free will.  I agree with Steve;\'s 
>> >> comment that God cannot create another God, but He can create beings perfect 
>> >> in what they are.
>> 
>> >In other words the omnipotent God is *not* capable of creating a universe
>> >with no sinning and free will. When will Christians stop creating
>> >logical traps for themselves?
>> 
>> Hmm.  You have an interesting definition of a logical trap.  If God creates
>> a universe of people with 'free will' who do not sin, there still has to be
>> the logical possibility of evil.  If there is no possible way to do evil,
>> then there is no free will.

>I see, the classical 'everything is black and white'. Well, I could 
>state that instead of talking about evil and good, we could talk about 
>zero state and entropy. Same situation, but suddenly we don't need
>to deal with 'black and white' based logical contradictions. 

I don't believe this is 'black and white'.  There are clearly degrees of
actualized evil, from our perspective.

>> It is entirely possible for God to create a being that would always make
>> the right choice.  But I don't see this as free will, for if the being
>> always makes the right choice, there is no possibility that they will do
>> evil, thus no real possibility, thus no free will.

>Here you assume that free will requires sinning. This also implies
>that people will not have a free will in heaven -> robots. Also it
>implies that free will is tied to sinning, and if God also has
>free will he has to sin in order to make the right choice. Sigh.
>More logical illusions.

Free will requires the logical possibility of sin.  Without that logical
possibility, then there is no free will.

I don't have an answer for 'robots' in heaven.  Augustine said that in
heaven it is not possible to sin...I haven't worked this out.  I'll freely
admit that.  I'm certainly no expert theologian....

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15609 alt.atheism:16521
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:48:14 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> So the son went to the delinquent borrowers with his benevolent offer.
>> And oh the joy of those who accepted.

>I know some pretty miserable Christians. 

I was a lot more miserable as a Christian than I am now as a
non-Christian.  Not all of my improved life outlook is due to that one
change, but it's definitely an important factor.  A lot of the changes
that have helped me feel better about myself are incompatible with the
brand of Christianity (Missouri Synod Lutheranism) I was spoonfed as a
child.

-- 
The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
	-- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:41:10 GMT

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

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

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


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:12:15 GMT

In article <26AUG199223102979@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.cci
.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.063646.12275@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.
u.edu (Alan Smith) writes...
>>>[JJL:]
>>>Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
>>>creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
>>>intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
>>>of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intell
g
>>nt
>>>life created in the latter manner has autonomy?
>>>
>>Cause maybe if the raw materials were there it might have sprung into i
's
>>own being, but if they weren't then an act of will would have bben need
d?
>> 
>>Big Al.  I dunno, sounds like a good explination to me.
>
>Not to me.  Why would an intelligent being have autonomy if created
>in a situation in which "it might have sprung into its own being" but
>not if created in a situation where it could not have spontaneously
>arisen?  Both hypothesized cases involve "an act of will" on the part
>of the creator.  Why should *either* case give the creator the right
>to do anything it likes with his creation?
>
Because something created ex nihilo "owes" it's existance to it's creator,
whereas something created normally may or may not actually have been
created, it doesn't know.

Big Al.  I dunno, it's hard to argue a point you don't agreee with.






Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15378 alt.atheism:16335
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Date: 24 Aug 92 23:29:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <92235.002444SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>, SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET wrote:
> The entire thrust of Fundagelical Christianity since the 1970s has
> been to push for a repressive, anti-democratic social agenda.  As
> for the Bible, it is like a magic cow with a thousand tits - a flavor
> for every taste.  The OT has enough bestial behavior tricked out
> as "God's will" and "God's law" to fuel any fascist agenda.  What
> Master Race smacks of more arrogance than the Born Again Christian?
> 
> The Oregon Citizens Alliance, the Colorado Family Values group, the
> Focus on the Family group, Rev. Wildmon's trusty hatemongers, and
> not least of all the Fundagelical Pope, Pat Robertson, all speak
> as "religious" groups and each and everyone is ultra, ultra Right
> Wing.

Hey, doesn't traditional republican values stand for non-government
controlled environments? And religious freedom. Silly me, I thought
republicans stood for their values.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."