HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:36:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

smk@cbnews.cb.att.com (stephen.m.kennedy) writes:

>In article <adams.714863266@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>I do smell a fish! ;-)  In your logic again.  If God created people who
>>would ALWAYS chose the right way, they aren't truly free!

>But what exactly do you mean by "truly free"?  There are many, many things we
>cannot do, perhaps even things we don't have concepts for, so why does "truly
>free" only encompass being able to choose between "good" and "evil"?

Truly free mean, in my opinion, the ability to chose between two (or more)
actual possibilities.  Things which are logically or physically impossible 
are not actual possibilities (ie have a chance of being realized).

What I'm saying is that to have a free will, we must be able to freely
chose between options that have a real possibility of occuring.

In other words, I am 'free' to lift a 200 ton boulder with my bare hands,
but I am not able.  Thus, I don't really have a choice, since there is not
a real possibilty of it ever happening.

 -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
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Pi in the Bible
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:18:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za's message of 31 Aug 92 12:08:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.140833.202592@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
   Since all the figures in the text are to the nearest whole cubit,

Is this stated anywhere or are we meant to infer this?


   Yours in Christ Jesus,
   Anthony Faull

Yours in a chair
bevan
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15495 alt.atheism:16420
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Life with meaning but without God
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:11:17 GMT
 <Btovtp.D0n@agora.rain.com> <sbuckley.715468099@sfu.ca>
 <07knj5b.bskendig@netcom.com>
Organization: Penn State University

This concept of Good and Evil is ridiculous!  They are both relative terms and
depend on your frame of reference.  What's seems good to one person is evil to
another.
Religions' attempt to classify "good and evil" into a simple -black and white-
senario is foolish.  Even if you were to accept this concept of "good and evil"
 (which I don't),  you should see that there is a "gray" area, and that it is
not that clean cut.

         Hello,
            Eylon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:47:06 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>Hmmmmm! Where is a talking serpent when you need one?

I asked Paul this same question....he mentioned that they still exist! ;-)

 -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: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:57:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <exukjb.107.715033652@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>The problem of the paradoxical stone too heavy for an omnipotent 
>being to lift is susceptible of a similar analysis--the task it proposes 
>cannot be coherently described, which leaves the traditional doctrine of 
>divine omnipotence pretty much intact.

The irony here is wonderful.  Seriously, though, far from "pretty much
intact" you have cut to the heart of the problem of the traditional
doctrine of omni-* divinity: it cannot be coherently described.  This
is quite evident in the circumlocutions required to justify this whole
"free will" concept, just as one example. 
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:35:42 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
: In article <1992Aug28.212457.8588@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: >Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
: >to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
: >that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
: >fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
: >than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
: >passing the buck on this?
: 
: The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
: should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
: good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
: for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's
: fairly straightforward, isn't it? Knowledge is the key and you are the
: lock. Knowledge includes knowledge that you have free will and are
: responsable for your actions. You ate the fruit, so don't go blaiming it
: on someone else, not Eve, not the snake, not the creator, not the Devil. 
: Wake Up! Heaven is right here, right now only most don't see it for what 
: it is. Hell is not seeing. You are free, but you must act as a free person. 
: No more blaiming the slave master anymore.

I am not blaming God.  I am an atheist.  I don't even believe He exists.
The question was addressed to Christians who believe in Original Sin.
If you don't believe in this doctrine, fine.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:27:00 GMT

Graham:
>Nope I am saying that what you call "blind faith" I call "faith",
>and what you call "faith" I call "educated guess".
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>OK, now I get it. There is a scaling factor between the way I use English
>and the way you use English. Fair enough since we are on opposite sides of
>the equator far from the native homeland of English if there is such a 
>thing. OK, so if you don't mind, let's try to work out a key:
>
>I say:			You say:
>truth			truth
(Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>  W/o answering for Graham, I'd say you're dead wrong out of the
>  gate with this one.  You will not, under any circumstances, see
>  Graham use the word truth in any post with the intent to imply
>  that he believes that there is such a creature.

Well Bob I was going to let this one slide, but since you mention it
yes you are right. I am not sure I believe that there is such a thing
as "truth". I suspect this is why I think the "blind" in "blind
faith" is nonsense.

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,alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:17:39 GMT

perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:

>In article <BtLLu6.Hrs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

>>[Mr. Graham wrote]
>>>>>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.  (Disclaimer:
>>>>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>>>>understand differing points of view.)
>>[I replaced the disclaimer.]
>>
>>>Not at all.  To the best of my knowledge, most of the children born in
>>>parts of the world suffering from overpopulation are born within
>>>wedlock, and most of the groups with the attitudes Doug cites do not
>>>advocate continence within marriage, often quite the opposite.
>>
>>I mentioned nothing about wedlock.  I'm talking about abstinence as a
>>form of birth control.  It jives with opposition to artificial means
>>of birth control, sex education, and abortion.  (Disclaimer: see the
>>above disclaimer.)

>  I notice that in addition to reinserting your disclaimer
>you've inserted the phrase "artificial means of" before "birth
>control", which is the only way you can support your position
>(abstinence as birth control is meaningless if birth control is
>opposed).

I did this purposefully.  I did it to make clear my assumption about
what Mr. Graham's wrote.  If he did not mean this (and we can each
judge for ourselves, or he can clarify), then my comments are not
relevant.  Take them as you please.

(I made this assumption because I know of no group that opposes
nonartificial forms of birth control.)

>  Even so, abstinence apart from compete sexual continence
>and for purposes of birth control requires rather sophisticated sex
>education, to say the least.  I suppose this allows for "have sex when
>you want a baby, and not otherwise".

Yes, the latter is what I am talking about.  Unfortunately it doesn't
require much sex education.  Unfortunately it fails in practice.  But
it "jives," which is all that was required.

>  In principle, this could lead to
>limiting population, especially if those forms of sexual behavior
>collectively known as Sodomy were not also opposed.  In practice it
>ignores human nature, and leads to overpopulation.

Yes, in practice it fails, which is why I reject the position.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:08:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <25731@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.143041.10878@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes...

>I'm not a historian, but I will take issue with this statement anyway.
>Just because one stupid patent officer thought that invention was 
>over doesn't mean that "many physicists felt physics was all worked out."
>It's very hard for me to imagine any reasonable scientist making this
>claim at the turn of the century.  

>Can you provide some evidence to support this contention?  How about
>a well known physicist who made a statement even slightly resembling
>a claim that all that was left was the details?  I don't know of any.

"The more important laws and facts of physical science have all been 
discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility
of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is 
exceedingly remote." Albert A Michelson, Nobel Laureate in 1902.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 12:25:38 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep1.222046.7261@ac.dal.ca>,
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Just reading the posts on Jesus' claims to be God
>...especially the quotation:
>
>"Before Abraham was, I am!"
>
>Has anybody but me noticed that that sounds remarkably like the kind of
>statements attributed to the Buddha?
>
>Example:
>
>"In all the heavens and the earth, I alone am the Honored One!"

Buddhist tradition is that there is only one person who "discovers"
the way and then preaches it for the benefit of mankind at one time.
That's the standard take on the above.

I have seen one, perhaps two, places in the suttas of the Pali Canon
where the Buddha says, "I am not (a) god."  I think he even disclaims
being a messenger from the gods.

>It is of interest that in many sects of Buddhism, the historical Buddha
>has become a mythological figure who supposedly
>exists in Heaven, and that
>one prays to.  Seems you can't make that kind of
>statement without somebody
>starting a church!

The Buddhist tradition accepts that there are gods, but like everything
else in the universe they are subject to change, and not the eternal
beings of Western tradition.  In Southeast Asia people not well versed
in the Buddhist religion do treat the Buddha himself as if he were
a divine figure.

Later on Mahayana Buddhism in northern and eastern Asia developed
an expanded scriptural tradition and conceptions which seem to
waver between panentheism and theism.  Discussion of Hwa Yen (Kegon
shu) Buddhism often sound rather like Eckhart's descriptions of
the Christian godhead.

The Shin Buddhist sect in Japan was referred to by the Roman
Catholic missionaries as "the Lutherans" because of their emphasis
on the saving grace of Amida Buddha and his vow to save all of
mankind.

Men can find the material for the manufacture of controlling gods
and personal saviours in almost any scriptures, but often those
same scriptures point to beyond that very sort of thing.
Don't know that it matter much either way as long as you don't go
bashing and harrassing those who choose the other path, or those
who just decide to take a break from the entire thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Jack Carroll       "...and what, sir, is that which for those in
<SECBH@CUNYVM>      heaven is reckoned a good gain to make?"

                    "The state of man is for dwellers in heaven reckoned
                     going to the happy reward."
                                                  Itivuttaka III, iv, 4
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15442 alt.atheism:16384
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:18:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BtwuFt.6CH@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <graham.715346656@galois> 
>graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Nope I am saying that what you call "blind faith" I call "faith",
>>and what you call "faith" I call "educated guess".
>
>OK, now I get it. There is a scaling factor between the way I use English and
>the way you use English. Fair enough since we are on opposite sides of the
>equator far from the native homeland of English if there is such a thing. OK,
>so if you don't mind, let's try to work out a key:
>
>I say:			You say:
>truth			truth

  W/o answering for Graham, I'd say you're dead wrong out of the
  gate with this one.  You will not, under any circumstances, see
  Graham use the word truth in any post with the intent to imply
  that he believes that there is such a creature.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
From: rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:46:21 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>>     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.
>
>----  I don't have to poke holes in logic to know that God is not
>responsible to evil.  The bible says in many places that nothing but good
>comes from the Lord, God, Holy Spirit, etc...   That is proof enough for
>me.
[Lots more drivel deleted]

Translation:  Confronted with an argument you cannot refute, you simply
deny that refutation is necessary.  It matters not that what you believe
is internally inconsistant; faith is all that is important.  In fact, you
don't give a rat's ass for consistancy or even truth.  Only what you
think the bible says matters.  If the bible said that the sky is red or
the moon is made of green cheese, you'd believe it, dammit!

If this is truly all that your religion boils down to, then I want no
part in it.  I refuse to believe in a god that gives me the capability
for logical thought and then sets up the universe so that I will be
tormented for eternity if I use that capability.

swehtam bob

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:33:39 GMT

Dave Sill writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>
>>  wow, it seems in this you have described just how it is.  god forgives
>>us regardless of whether we accept it or even acknowledge the necessity
>>of god's forgiveness.  god says, "your are forgiven, [everyone] - 
>>even if you hate me, i will not hold anything against you."  
>>
>>  but we still have the freedom to ignore that forgiveness and all it
>>entails.  just like joe can choose to ignore your forgiveness.

>Really?  Every Christian I've ever talked to said that one had to accept the
>"gift" before dying--that the only unforgivable sin was to *not* accept the gift.

  salvation comes in two parts.  jesus died for all of our sins, but we
must accept that gift for the second part.  this acceptance must occur
when we're still breathing and able to make decisions.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:44:13 GMT

Jake Rose writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  jesus was a mortal man who was raised to eternal life.

>Well, then your form of Christianity is different than that of other people
>even in this newsgroup.

  well who then is a christian in this newsgroup who doesn't think jesus
lived a flesh and blood life?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:45:16 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>: Dan O'Connell writes:
>: 
>:   this is a very easy critique to wiggle out of.  this situation assumes
>: the human nature of the two children today is the same as the nature of
>: adam and eve as they were created in harmony with god as he was providing
>: all their needs and of their own accord they ate not of that tree until
>: tempted.  so the analogy becomes faulty on that assumption.

>Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
>to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
>that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
>fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
>than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
>passing the buck on this?

  the standard answer is that for god to create us with authentic
free will, we'd have to truly be able to choose good or evil.  otherwise
it's like a parent saying to a child, now you have a choice to put
your hand on the stove burner or not.  but if you touch the burner
you will surely be burnt.  but then the parent does not have the stove
turned on.  that's what it would be like if we had the will power to
resist evil...it wouldn't be a viable choice.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15477 alt.atheism:16405
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:35:08 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>Eric Sieferman writes:

>>If "believed and be saved" is the motto, I must be saved
>>because I believed.

>>Knowing that one is going to have eternal happiness
>>sure relieves a lot of contemporary stress (not!)


>  it's good that you believe.  but does it make any difference in your
>life?  jesus won't give me life without suffering on a silver platter.
>but he does give me inner peace [and many other things] that help me
>live a better life and contribute to this world.  these are the fruits
>of jesus' presence.

Newsflash: Inner peace can be had by anyone.  It can even be chemically
           induced (not recommended).  Claiming it comes from God or
           some other mythical source is just a lie to yourself about
           your mental and emotional abilities.  Humans built the
           egyptian pyramids.  Humans laid out the Nazca lines.  Humans
           built the great wall.  Why?  Because we wanted to.  Not
           because of some god.  That might be the excuse employed, but
           that's mostly politiking for the favor and following of the
           masses.  No regime can survive if its participants are
           unwilling.


>---                          
>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
"Life-Action Press".  That's what's at the end of "1-800-REALITY".

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:54:44 GMT

(Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:

>This summarizes quite well my Heidegger influenced view that 
>every individual models his world view, and there are *no* right
>or wrong world views, just different.

No right or wrong implies a moral equivalence.
Would you then say that say Ghandi's world view was no more "right"
than Hitler's world view?  If not, then there is a higher standard with
which you are comparing both views -- a "rightness" standard, perhaps? 


Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:46:28 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Because God did NOT do that (apparently), he MUST want evil to exist.
>He must WANT people to sin, and fail, and be separate from Him. 
>Because that is the kind of universe he created. And omnipotent beings
>ALWAYS get what they want. 

  this only works if you presume that people did not choose to sin
out of free will, that god somehow causes us to sin all the time.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15191 alt.atheism:16158