HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<12961@inews.intel.com> <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu> 
	<Bsxoq3.8pB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <geWkbQ600WBM05jF5M@andrew.cmu.edu> 
	<adams.713797645@spssig>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:50:20 GMT

In article <adams.713797645@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
<I posted these notes in original post on this topic (ie this thread
<originated with me).  I posted from the Ryrie Study Bible the verses and
<notes...;-)  I even commendted on the fact that it was published by Moody
<Publishing....and they are about as pro-life as it is possible to be...
<We've come full circle....

Yes, indeed we have. And your post was quite thorough and well referenced, one
could hardly ask for more, but some people, when you hit them over the head
with a 2x4 say that it was really 1 7/8 x 3 7/8, see what I'm saying? Some
people just can't read the writing on the wall, even when it is revealed. Some
people are just beyond reason, their brains were shut down long ago. Maybe
you should put this stuff together into a FAQ? And it is important to point
out the Bible is most certainly not anti-abortion or pro-choice, it is
clearly pro-abortion or perhaps some would prefer pro-induced-miscarriage,
at the option of the husband of course.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.204209.24494@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21155605@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
>vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>>What forms of life
>>have no DNA in them?
>
>Certain viruses, and prions.

     We should not refute one bogus argument with another.  Viruses do
not self-replicate so they cannot be primitive organisms (i.e. they have
to have arisen after the self-replicators).  The existence of viruses
tells us almost nothing about prebiotic evolution.  I don't know much about
prions; is it even yet agreed that they really exist as infectious
agents?  Last I heard, this was very much still up for debate.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:47:36 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <Bt7752.Duy@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 
> Dogma Test: Luke 14:26

  I assume you are saying that I must hate my father, mother , wife and
children, brothers and sisters etc??? Look again Paul, this is another classic
misquote of scripture seen before on this newsgroup. Jesus is saying that we
must love Him more than anything/anybody else see Matt 10:37-39 which is a
parallel verse .. and do us all a favour, don't misquote v35 as in the context
of the paragraph, it makes sense and is *NOT* contradictory!!



> 
> My dog is always barking, does he remind you of Toto?
  Is this supposed to prove something?



-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug11.012115.5140@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
	<1992Aug11.150440.27507@cs.joensuu.fi> <1246@esl.ESL.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:26:28 GMT

In article <1246@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
>these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
>really discuss points in the Bible.

And that modern day prophet is ... [drumroll please] ... YOU! Only you can
interpret the written word for yourself, only your beliefs are valid for
yourself. This is what it means to be an individual. This is what it means
to be free. Now, walk that freedom walk and talk that freedom talk. Realize
the prophet and profit in you. The walls must come down, the era of strong
central government and strong central church is over. Welcome the era of the
free, self-thinking, individual. You are number 1, the king is no more!

Be seeing you!
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:27:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:

>A good mathematical(?) logic. Bravo, John. Now, if we are to agree
>with this logic, then explain to me, how the Triune gods in Trinity
>still mean  monotheism? As per Athanasian creed of co-equality -
>                     Father (in heaven) = 1 God
>                     Son of God (Jesus) = 1 god
>                     Holy Ghost         = 1 god
>                    ----------------------------
>                    1 God in monotheism = 3 gods (Trinity)   .... (4)

The Athanasian creed says quite clearly
                     Father             is 1 God
                     Son of God         is 1 God
                     Holy Ghost         is 1 God
                    ----------------------------
                   			   1 God

because the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the same God.  They are
different modes of existence of the same God.  You will note that I
changed = to "is".  = implies that the terms are interchangeable.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not interchangeable with God.  The
Father is God, but he is only one of God's three modes of being.

If you look at how the Trinity developed, it was precisely an attempt
to preserve monotheism.  The NT introduced the concept of the Logos as
co-existent with God (a concept which was actually based on
speculative Jewish thought, by the way).  Some Christian thinkers
interpreted this as a separate divine being.  The Trinity rejected
this, interpreting the Father and the Logos as different modes of
being of one God.  This was an attempt to avoid having a second divine
being.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Summary: This is like sooooo, fifeteen minutes ago!
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:11:13 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Hi all... I am back from an AWESOME summer.  Just a few observations:
>1.   This group never gets anywhere with any of the discussions and
>     arguments are never decided.

Where do you want to go in such a hurry? What decisions do you seek?

>2.   The only thing anyone learns is how to defend themselves and
>     maybe (just maybe) a little theology.

What could be so bad about the second, or the first for that matter?

>3.   The honesty and willingness to learn and change is severly
>     lacking in many poster personalities.

By whose definition? Who is defining change?

>For starters, post your stance on spiritual absolutes:
>   I, ____, believe that there are spiritual absolutes that can be
>   sought after and found by honest individuals who want God's will
>   to be done in their lives.
>   I, ____, believe that there are no spiritual absolutes because
>   ______________________________________________________________
>   and I read this group and post because ______________________.

Why limit yourself to Western thought? Spiritual Absolutes? There is
only one constant and that is change. The Lord delivered you and your
kind FROM slavery, why do you cling to the broken shackles?

>P.S.  I do have my own views as many of you already know but I will
>be objective as I hope everyone will be.  I am sure I will learn from
>all of you if we can cooperate?  May I suggest that there _may_ be an
>evil force that _may_ be causing the chaos we have seen so far on
>this group?  Be careful!

Could it be the Christian Devil? Or just the Church Lady?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:28:37 GMT

Robert Beauchaine writes:

>Anthony G Rose writes:
>>
>>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>>you!

>  Could you then explain to me what happens if I choose to blaspheme
>  against the spirit (whatever the hell that means) regardless of
>  this wonderful free gift???  Or what happens if I knowingly reject
>  the message of Christ after having believed?  Hmmm?

  seems pretty simple doesn't it?  if you reject christ you reject 
salvation.  or am i missing the complexity you're implying?
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:43:49 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <1992Aug21.193828.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> 
holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>A Catholic theologian friend of mine said that God could in fact create
>something so heavy he couldn't lift it, because he is Omnipotent.  He went on
>to point out that God could then lift it, thereby performing a miracle.

I like that one. Sounds like your friend is Zen Catholic? Your friend's
name wouldn't be Zarathustra, would it? You know, the closer one gets to
the transcendent, the more one realizes that the transcendent is in fact
transcendent. But then a two year old could tell you that. The question of 
religious affiliation becomes moot.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:31:33 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
really discuss points in the Bible.
-- 
Good day!

Mark
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:53:38 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <920818174611_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) writes:
> When you die, where will you go?

To the spirit world to await the resurrestion and judgement day.

> If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

I hope so.  But I think God has the final say on that one.

> If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you
> into my heaven?" What would you say?

Because I tried to come to know you better so that I could do the
things you wanted me to; I tried to make things better for those
around me; but I am a sinner, so I hope you will have mercy on me
even though I have many weaknesses, shortcommings, and imperfections.

--
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:13:25 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>NRSV says 'sound', also, and it tends to be a good literal translation.
>So, the quesiton is, who speaks Hebrew and can tell us? ;-)

It is not a question of speaking Hebrew, it is a question of knowing
how the top Biblical Hebrew Scholars translate this passage into
English. And the answer is JPS:Tanakh ISBN:0-8276-0252-9:
Genesis 3
8. They heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at
the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife hid from the Lord God
among the trees of the garden. 9. The Lord God called out to the man and
said to him, "Where are you?". 10. He replied, "I heard the sound of You
in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."

Of course this sound may have been the Lord talking to Himself. ::B^}

>>I've seen these examples of yours before where "your love for god is so
>>great that your love for other must appear as hate" and now this one.  I
>>don't believe that this is a reasonable premise.  For example, my love for
>>my wife is the greatest love I could possibly have for a woman.  That
>>doesn't mean that I hate my mother, or that I hate other women.

>No, but if you look at the scale :
>|----------+----------|
>^                     ^
>|                     |
>+-Absolute Hate       +-Absolute Love
>Then your emotion towards Jesus is to be so close to Absolute that any
>other 'love' on the continuum seems like hate...

Hmm, is this another example of word inflation? So, your love of Jesus
is so great that you HATE everyone else including yourself? Sounds like
someone is addicted to the white horse. What kind of god would demand
this kind of absolute attention? Again, this idea of Absolute Love of
Jesus and HATE of everything else does explain most of Christian
European history, but it hardly seems like a good way to continue unless
the goal is self destruction of the species and trashing the Earth while
we are at it. Does it? What has become of the message of brothery love?
Is it really the Lord's intention that we idolize Him so much that we
HATE our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our children and
even ourselves? Why does that seem somewhat demonic? It certainly sounds
like classic disfunctionalism. Hardly the idea of Good Family Values. It
seems to me that under this definition, Hitler was a model Christian. Is
this what the religious right means by morality?

>>I doubt that I'd ever change my opinion, unless some pretty impressive
>>evidence was found.  But I do respect your opinions.  It's just that
>>sometimes you voice your opinions like they are accepted *fact*.

>Hey, for me they are..:-)  After all, I read the manual! ;-)

Yeah, but did you get a good translation?
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:11:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92234.150136HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>, HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes...

[...]

>   2.2  Religious non-Mormon (NM) and anti-Mormon (AM)
>interpretations (note I am not here implying that all NM are AM):  JS is
>clearly a false prophet, since he disagrees with basic doctrines of ... (fill
>in the correct denominational interpretation). 

	This loads the argument that LDs doctrines are just minor 
differences between denominations. This presumes that the LDs are just 
another Christian denomination. Accordingly, only the LDs hold this 
view. Also, there are many items that are transdenominational that are 
held by all Christian denominations... such as monotheism.	
This is not a matter of denominational difference. 

[...]

>   2.3  LDS interpretations:  The LDS accept JS as a true prophet.
>However, a caveat should be mentioned.  Prophets, revelation, and
>scripture are not inerrant or infallible according to the Mormon
>tradition.  JS can make mistakes and still be a true prophet.  

	How can a LDs prophet speak something, and say that it is a 
revelation from God, and be wrong? How can he be a true prophet and 
speak (in thus saith the Lord delivery) and prophesy falsely?

[...]

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:46:13 GMT

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21081947@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>     There was nevertheless an interesting determination as to the mathe-
>matical probability I believe of an important molecule (perhaps DNA),
>forming on its own, and the probability was so small as to be nonexistent.
>I believe it was a French scientist, and the number was 10 to the some-
>where between 74 and 141 or so AGAINST its forming.  Like I said, if 
>anyone wants to believe in creation, they may tend to accept this first
>chance, whereas those who don't first chance will say this isn't true
>and I am lying without even checking it out.

     No one is going to accuse you of lying, only of falling for a
flawed argument.  The calculation you quote is well-known but contains a
number of flaws.  The most glaring one is that it assumes more-or-less
direct self-assembly from nothing.  I don't think that any modern
workers in prebiotic evolution would say that DNA just sprang into being
from the primordial soup; the usual assumption is rather that the first
organisms didn't use DNA at all.  There is not widespread agreement as
to how exactly the first organisms arose; some hypothesize protein-only
organisms, others prefer scenarios where RNA served as both genetic
material and catalyst, still others advocate early "organisms" which used
neither.  We will probably never know.
     Unless God suddenly chooses to reveal Himself to us, we will never
know whether He exists.  Science should therefore proceed without
assuming that He does since science is a discipline based on physical
evidence and not on metaphysics.  Those of us who believe in Him (and that
includes me) should not take these beliefs with us into the laboratory;
that way lies poor science and poorer theology.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Cain's & Abel's Wives [was: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently]
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>  [Standard discussion and solutions about where Cain and Abel 
>   --and for that matter Seth-- got wives.]

Personally, I tend to lean toward the Subgenius answer to this question, as
expounded in the following family-tree:

          ADAM-+-EVE         PROTO-HUMAN HOMONID ANCESTORS
               |                         |
               |                         |
               |                         |
               |                         |
             CAIN                    MRS CAIN
                \                       /
                 \                     /
                  \                   /
                   \                 /
                    -------+---------
                           |
                           |
                           |
                           v
                  FIRST "REAL" HUMANS


... that way, everybody's happy.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --  "Basically, we're going to do whatever we 
                      have to to get re-elected." --G H W Bush
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:56:33 PDT

In article <1992Aug10.223943.19583@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, on 10 Aug 1992 22:39:43 GMT,
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:

>
>
>(Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>[Mark 10:17,18] it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus
>>did not regard himself as God...
>
>(Steve Adams) writes:
>>No, it would seem to me that Jesus was asking the person to consider who he
>>was adressing.  In other words, the person had called Him 'good teacher'
>>and Jesus said none but God is good.  He asked WHY the man called Him good.
>>To me, that is asking a reason of the man for the statement.
>
>(Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>I have two objections to your interpretation. First, if Jesus were God,
>>he would have known the answer to the question as to why?
>
>Of course he would. Read on a little. Jesus was testing the man. Jesus asked
>the why question for the benefit of the listeners, and to get the man to
>examine his greeting. I tutor a couple of HS kids in math and I ask them
>questions all the time that I know the answers to.  A teaching technique.
>
Except that here there is nothing really to test. The man addressed Jesus as Good Teacher as a sign of respect. This is obvious.

>>Secondly, if the man could have somehow figured out that Jesus was God
>>in disguise, why didn't Jesus praise the fellow for his insight? After
>>all, Peter supposedly got the keys of the kingdom for merely intuiting
>>that Jesus was the Messiah.
>
>Also solved by reading on a little. The man failed the test. His insight was
>not very praiseworthy if his money was more important to him than following
>the man he thought was God. Jesus uses the whole episode as an object lesson
>to his disciples.
>
>
>Dave Weaver
>
    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:01:20 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714076565@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>You could say a very similar thing about Allah.
>
>>Are you a Muslim as well, Mr. Buckley?
>
>  no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
>understand things or help my relationship with the divine.  jesus did.
>and similiarly, krishna, buddha, the tao and heaps of gnostic-offered
>spirits and spiritual creatures i encountered all failed to bring me to god.
>tho there is no shortage of people for whom all those spiritual entities
>make a difference.  but i suspect that you'd discount their realities 
>as well because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically 
>unverifiable as mine.
Yes, I do, Mr. Buckley, but that is where the similarity between you
and me ends.

You reject as evidence for the truth of THEIR religion precisely
the same class of evidence that you accept for the truth for YOUR
religion. That is what is known as "special pleading" and is
logically flawed. By contrast, I recognize that their
spiritual experiences appear to be the same as yours, and recognizing
that if I apply the same interpretation to them as you do to yours, I end
up with a contradiction, and seeing no way in which YOUR experience
is different, conclude that that mode of interpretation must
not have force.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem