HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:36:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


>"We" could, I suppose, be a considerable powerbase if we voted as a block.
>The reason I see this NOT happening is that atheists, in VERY general, are
>more prone to reason and tend not to be "one-issue" voters.  Hence, it's
>hard to organize...
>Of course, if Pat Robertson were the VP candidate I suspect we'd _ALL_ be
>voting for the opposite no matter who it was!  :)

If you want some political clout, say you voting for whoever you want to lose
because you think that they would support you atheistic views more than any
other candidate. :)

If my reading of the `Moral Majority' you seem to suffer from that might work

;)

Dave
--
David Butcher n0404@ncl.ac.uk
--
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Sean: TESTIMONY CALLOUT! 
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:27 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

JM>Without exception Christianity is the only "religion" which recognizes that
JM>man, of himself, cannot please God or be reunited with Him.  I know you
JM>know this, but it is still the most amazing fact about Christianity and one
JM>that makes it truly unique.

This is not correct. The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of
the Lord, no one can approach Him or please Him.
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:07:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep11.115326.22102@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> >  You dismiss others response as "rubbish" and now you been caught calling
> >  someone on the net as being filled to the brim with _shit_.
> 
> 	Not true. I only said that Kent was stubborn. 

This guy is an interesting person (I would actually like to meet him!).
First he calls me 'pisshead', then he tries to cover it up with a lot 
of words. A pisshead is a pisshead, Antti. You can't run from that
statement, ever!!! I guess I'm also stubborn, but when you have 
the bull by the horns, you better keep hangin' to it :-).

Antti, please stop this silly nonsense, everyone knows you are 
stubborn and unless you change the your net policies, nobody
will believe you (as the case is today).

Cheers,
Kent


"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:37:09 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.715789739@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:

>> It is a logical fallacy to suggest that God can work against His will.  As
>> such, your point fails...since sin is going against God's will and causing
>> separation, it is illogical to suggest that God can work against His own
>> purposes...

>However you must agree on my statement that humans are capable of 
>doing things (sinning) God is not capable of. Is this a case of
>a problem with the Christian notion of omnipotence?

Well, that depends. ;-)  If by omnipotence, we say 'can do anything', then
sure.  But if by omnipotence we say 'can do anything, within the bounds of
logical possibilities', then no.  In other words, I don't believe that it
is logically possible to create a 'square circle' or 'a rock so big He
can't lift it.'  Similarly, it is logically impossible for God to act
against His own interests.

I think we're playing with definitions...;-)

>"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
>have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
Amen! ;-)  Unfortunately, I have met the idiot, and on occasion he is me!

 -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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:38:46 GMT

In article <adams.716494587@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
>>>>by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
>>>>should ever want to forgive sin?
>>>The rules are the way they are because God desired free worship from free
>>>moral agents.  Thus, he established the ground rules at creation.  I don't
>>>see that they are necessarily 'dumb'...just perhaps beyond our complete
>>>understanding....
>>...  I am not asking why God cannot create people incapable of sinning
>>at all, just why he can't create one [world] where the forgiveness process is
>>different.
>Sure He could.  But ...

If he could, then my question remains: Why didn't he _do_ it instead of making
a world with such dumb rules?  (Your answer about having to match the OT
sacrifices doesn't work; explaining dumb rules as needed to match other dumb
rules is rather silly.  He could have created a world without OT sacrifices
just like he could create one without Jesus sacrifices.)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 01:19:08 GMT

Burning oneself to prove ones worthiness is foolish suicide that does not
please God AT ALL and if I may say so does not exhibit faith....

In article <Bu2L8v.IBn@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
>>faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
> 
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>Ha! Ever heard of Islamic Jihad? Ever heard of the Buddhist monks who burn
>>themselves alive for causes they feel are right? If THAT'S not "wholistic
>>assurance" I don't know what is...!
>
>I wonder if John has ever heard of this most challenging path to enlightenment,
>somehow I doubt it. The way it works is the monk assumes the lotus position
>and the smile of buddha and the monk nods when prepared for the test, the
>ultimate test of one's "absolute knowledge of unseen". An assitant dumps petrol
>onto the monk and throws a match. The monk must not move and must not show any
>pain, the smile of the buddha must be maintained. If this occurs, the monk
>is of course enlightened and leaves this world. If not, the monk feels
>tremendous pain and must go through many cycles of rebirth to try again. The
>monk only gets one chance at this test per lifetime, so rigorous training is
>called for. One starts with a cold shower and goes forward from there. So,
>John, does your assurance of absolute knowledge and faith in the unseen
>prepare you for this test? Or perhaps you'd like to admit of a somewhat lower
>assurance? The test awaits you, pass it and you are assured of enlightenment,
>of union with the ONE, but fail and it is proved that your assurance is not
>as strong as you believed. If you are Buddhist, you get infinite chances to
>pass, as each failure means rebirth and another try. If you are Christian, I'm
>not sure what happens. Presumably you only get one lifetime, so if you fail
>you fall into the fail bin called Christian Hell and it is there that you
>spend eternity, not seeing the one you love. So John, just how assured are
>you, absolutely?

I am absolutely sure that I do not need to do such things to prove it to
myself or God.  This is the best example of trying to "get to God" on ones
own merit.  Faith comes from humility.  Its not "look at me" but rather "look
at God".  If a Christian was successful they would be separated from God
because they obviously did not understand or accept His free gift of grace.
'Nough said.

There is a big difference between faith and stupidity, and I only apply it
(faith) to one thing: that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and
man, and the joy of my life (both now and "after").

John M.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:41:10 GMT

jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>>It makes perfect sense.  Human nature is to question why, look for
>>answers, and try to learn.  Theism requires you to accept things that
>>are totally irrational and can't be proven.  This means that you must
>>actively suppress your human nature.  To do so, you must use all your
>>mind's powers.  Therefore, theism is more intellectually demanding
>>than atheism.

(Mark Christiansen) writes:
>I disagree with your requirement on theism.  I find science to be an
>understanding of what God does.  An active search for knowledge is
>required to understand God and part of that search should include a
>search for knowledge about the Universe.  Through such a search, we
>can better understand God.

And what do you do when science raises more questions about your
God than it answers Mark? Consider evolution for example. Now science 
espouses evolution. You may consider that evolution as an explanation
of God's work, but in fact accepting evolution like this raises more
questions that it answers. eg: why did god bother with evolution?

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: What is 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:56:47 GMT

What is 'Kingdom of Heaven' mentioned in the Bible?  Is it the same
as Heaven?  Does 'enter the Kingdom of Heaven' means 'go to Heaven
after you die'?

Here is an exerpt from Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible.

	"The expression 'kingdom of heaven' (lit. 'of the heavens'),
	 one that is peculiar to Matthew, refers to the rule of the
	 heavens, i.e. the rule of the God of heaven over the earth
	 (cp. Dan. 2:44; 4:25,32).  The kingdom of heaven is similar
	 in many respects to the kingdom of God and is often used
	 synonymously with it, though emphasizing certain features
	 of divine government.  When contrasted with the universal
	 kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven includes only men on
	 earth, excluding angels and other creatures.  The kingdom
	 of heaven is the earthly sphere of profession as shown by
	 the inclusion of those designated as wheat and tares, the
	 latter of which are cast out of the kingdom (Mt. 13:41),
	 and is compared to a net containing both the god and bad
	 fish which are later separated (Mt. 13:47) ..."
 	           - Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, p. 972 footnote 4

As Scofield stated, the Kingdom of the Heavens refers to the rule of
the heavens ON EARTH.  It is an earthly sphere where God's rule is
acknowledged.  To enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens means to
have God as your Lord in your life.  It means to repent the way of
life that is separated from God.  It means to live a life that is
filled with Christ, and have Him as the sphere in which we live, move,
and have our beings.  It has nothing to do with "after you die, you will
go to Heaven".

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:59:08 GMT
Summary: we are everywhere

In article <1992Sep5.202107.13250@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

> But where are the Christians speaking out against OCA?

All over the place, in Oregon and elsewhere.  I suggest you think VERY
long and hard before you try to claim that organized, denominational
Christian institutions start stumping against each other in the arena
of politics.  Non-Christians are very quick to condemn politicized
sects for engaging in politics -- it is a bit hypocritical to then
start *asking* for the very same thing (as long as its on the "good"
side.)

I am normally willing to second Jack Carroll's pieces here.  At times
he provides a very trenchant and apt critique of the mess Christians
of various stripes have made of family and social and political worlds.
In other words, the analogy I am about to draw is NOT one that I think
is generally characteristic of Jack, or of critics of Christians and
Christianity in general.  HOWEVER, the one thing on the net which seems
to me closest to the tone of Jack's note here was Clayton Cramer's
obscenely offensive dumping onto soc.motss demanding that we disavow
and stomp on NAMBLA and anything that might faintly smack of pederasty.

I will not lick the boots of Clayton Cramer.  He has no basis for such
demands, no understanding of what he is talking about, and an agenda of
abuse and denigration for anyone HE thinks he can take as a target.  I
will not, either, indulge in bootlicking anti-Christians who demand that
I follow THEIR agenda and rhetoric or disappear.  I'm here; I'm Christian;
I'm queer; get used to it.  Again, I do NOT think that Jack is comparable
-- in hatred, bigotry or ignorance, nor in potential national disasater
and disgrace should his agenda become fashionable -- but I suggest he
should stop using "Christian" in a way that attempts to make us all clones
of the hate-filled fundamentalists unless we do his bidding in his way.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			"I know of nothing -- I suspect
					not even death -- that is so fixed
mls@usl.com				in the present tense as love."
standard disclaimer					-- Jess Anderson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: we don't need no water, let it burn-yo
	<lasfhjINN1mv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:26:11 GMT

In article <lasfhjINN1mv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> The sacrifice was that Jesus gave up His deity, assumed the form of a
> man, lived the life of a man (except without sin), and then gave up what
> he had -- his life -- in order to offer what was required to redeem man.

Hmm, except without sin? Now this word sin, is that to do evil things like
murder or is that the separation from the transcendent into the physical
world of human flesh? Did Jesus have knowledge of good and bad? Was Jesus
born of woman, through the birth canal, separated at birth? Why is it that
Adam and Eve were of sin once they ate the fruit of knowledge of good
and bad and Jesus is without sin? Of course, this is one of the big "problems"
in Christianity, how to have someone who is both God (transcendent) and
human (of the flesh) at the same time. Islam solves it by saying that Jesus
was a mortal prophet. Most other religions solve it by having personifications
of deity or demi-gods, these are the transcendent taking the form of human
flesh which results in various human limitations.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16144 alt.atheism:17136
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.101512.25753@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep2.180036.12365@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> >>corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
> >>>Could you name these three non-evolutionist biologists?
> >>
> >>	Me, Menem, Norrblad
> >>
> 
> >That's great....tell me more about these people.
> 
> 	I have told it in t.o .

  No you haven't.  Unless "they are on the net" and "menem has gone away for a
while" is telling us more about them.  Still no adresses (I looked ahead), still
not a single way to even confirm these people actually exist.

> 	I'm only scared of one thing in t.o : Speculative, scientific talk. I 
> 	can do it myself, too, but I HATE it so much I don't want to talk like
> 	that. 

  Is this why you never answer a question?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:10:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>So fellow airm chair theologians, isn't this another nail in the coffin
>concerning the issue of the holy trinity? If Jesus didn't know, only the
>Father did. How could he be God then at the same time, and not knowing
>about it, wonders Calvin?

No.  The Trinity does say quite you seem to think it says.  It talks
the unity of the Father, the eternal Logos, and the Holy Spirit.
(I've avoided the term Son, because it is used with at least three
different meanings, so it would be confusing.)  Jesus is not simply
identical to the eternal Logos.  Rather he is a human incarnation of
the Logos.  As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:30:37 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

00jdbecktel@bsu-ucs.uucp wrote:
: 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.                          
: 
: 
:                          Singed 
:                                 Young 
:                                  Ricky

You cannot have read the bible before you posted this. The verse to
which you refer is Genesis 1:27. This verse quite explicitly says that
humanity was made in the image of God; male and female.

Felicitations -- Chris
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bothering With Evolution (was something else)
Keywords: evolution, process, results, `Woof!'
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.161655.1043@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
}God may be interested in more than just the Final State of the Universe; maybe
}he is interested in the playing of the Divine Comedy, not just looking at the
}curtain after the play is over.  The dinosaurs all died at the end of the
}First Act, but that doesn't mean you can write them out of the play and not
}damage the whole.

The victim of a murder winds up dead, but only the sadist tortures it first.


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15892 alt.religion.kibology:3753
From: cgw@sol.acs.unt.edu (christopher williams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:50:47 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
Originator: cgw@sol

In <1992Sep4.052359.8722@athena.mit.edu> sramming@athena.mit.edu (Scott '~ibo' Ramming) writes:
>What about handing out the message free in the yellow boxes at
>selected Green Line and other (T) locations.
>~ibo

sorry, can't do that. (T) is (C).

>--
>the nonibo -ibo
>M. Scott Ramming  
>Cambridge MA 02139

-cgw-

--
christopher williams   cgw@unt.edu  +1 817 565 4161  Just a guy
lead programmer/operator, university of north texas  made of dots and lines.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:35:06 GMT

In article <adams.716569269@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>So why didn't God make a world with the rule "sacrifices in ancient times,
>>no sacrifices now"?  What he really did, according to you, was make a world
>>where sacrifices were needed both then and now, and then kludge around the
>>latter by sending Jesus to get rid of the "now" part.  A rather roundabout
>>method.  Why didn't he just make the world without it to begin with?
>The basic answer to this is, I don't know.  I can't begin to explain this.

I hope you understand why I'm asking the question, though.

I'm not just asking it out of idle curiosity.  Some things grow on trees and
some on vines, but I don't go around asking why God didn't make watermelon
trees.

The reason I ask is because making a world whose rules require a Jesus to
forgive sin has several notable _dis_advantages.

If God had made a world where he could just wave his divine hands to forgive
sin, there would be an important difference between that world and one where
he restricted himself so he had to send Jesus: to be saved in the latter world,
you have to believe something, and to be saved in the former, you don't.

I, and many people, simply am incapable of believing certain things which
don't make sense to me.  I just _can't_ believe; and I can't force myself to
believe.  There is no way I can get sins forgiven under the Jesus version of
the world, only under the other one; God's decision to make a world where he
has to send Jesus, has the end result that a lot of people go to Hell because
of their lack of capacity for belief, something completely beyond their control.

There are also lots of secondary consequences.  If you don't have to believe to
be saved, there's no need for proselytization, or religious wars, or crusades.
There would be no religious intolerance.  This would be a big change.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:30:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67390@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Maybe you are blinded to the message by the god of this age:
> 
>    2 Cor 4:4   The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so
>       that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
>       is the image of God.
>    2 Cor 4:5   For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and
>       ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

Doesn't this sound like an elite religion for the few 'that understands'?
Is this an objective religion that a poor peasant in Somalia would easily
grasp?

> But you can't die well with it.

Why speculate about things that we don't know anything about anyway?
Or why is the moon yellow?

Cheers,
Kent
Cupertinian Devil.