HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: a miraculous definition
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:27:35 GMT

In article <4461.29E9A212@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> No, seriously for a sec - how you define a miracle is all hunky-dory by
|> me. But when James Reed and I started discussing miracles, I think we
|> were thinking about the high-profile miracles that the Old Testament is
|> laden with. THESE are the kinds of miracles that would lend credence to
|> the existence of God. Things that make you go "Neat!" don't help much,
|> and I do understand that you're not one to try to prove God's existence
|> by miracles. Welcome to impasse-city :)

Ah, I see that I did not understand what you were looking for.  What you want
is something with big dramatic impact.  Making an elephant disappear, or
something like that.  :-)

Yet to me, seeing green leaves reappear on trees in the spring is a great drama.
I know that others share my feelings about rainbows, because I have heard
Kermit the Frog singing a song about them.   (You listen to Sagan or Rather,
I prefer Kermit.)  The rainbow kinds of miracles serve just as well for me,
and are much more practical.  There are few enough elephants already.  :-)

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       | Just My Own Bigoted Opinions |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:48:22 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Les Bartel says:
>> I'm not really arguing about the Bible's worth as a journal of
>> events at the time. But being historically accurate does not make it
>> any more inspired by God than a 20th Century political science
>> textbook will be 300 years from now.
 
>It's historical accuracy adds credibility to its other contents.
 
Well, sorta. Really, though, the best you can say is "the Bible is not
wrong about everything, therefore it is right about at least some
things." The actual percentage of accurate facts in the Bible is
debatable :)
 
>> The first chance I get, I will look at his book. It would be unfair
>> of me to discredit him because he is unconvincing in person. :)
 
>It's refreshing to see an open mind like this.
 
Well, thanks, but I should point out that if the library doesn't have a
copy, then we're out of luck. I'm not rolling in cash so much that could
afford to buy that book, even if I wanted to. :) And after hearing
McDowell speak, I'm in no real hurry to give him any money...
 
>Unfortunately, too many people will reject Christianity without even
>considering the evidence.
 
True enough, I guess, but it works that way in reverse, too. Lots of
Christians discount other philosophies as the demented ravings of
godless heathens :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:44:13 GMT

In article <4350.29DDA8E1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> On the other hand, it *is* possible to prove God does exist, but it's
|> not likely to happen. To do that, you have to coerce God into performing
|> a blatant miracle, or otherwise prove his existence to the satisfaction
|> of all NON-believers.

God has performed "blatant" miracles in the past.  True, there may not
be many who witnessed them first-hand, but most people will believe a lot
that they don't witness first-hand (ask any jury :-).

There are some people who would not even be convinced by a "blatant"
miracle.

|> But, of course, the chances of God doing that are slim, since the big
|> guy/gal places a lot of emphasis on faith.

Slim, perhaps; zero, no.  Even if you happen to be one of the fortunate
ones who witnesses a miracle, that would only be the starting point (or
perhaps in your case "the straw that broke the camel's back" :-), you
will still come across situations where faith is required.

|> So, if you're willing to play the atheist, Jeff, go for it. It may be
|> refreshing for some of the readers to get the real McCoy, instead of the
|> the people like me who just SOUND atheist :)

Christian you don't sound atheist any more than I sound agnostic.
Seriously, I'm interested what Jeff has to say.  Between the three of us,
it should be interesting for the other readers.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason)
Subject: Re: That sin question
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:42:35 GMT

jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:

> Being born human does not force us (or doom us) to fall short of God's
> standards.  It provides us the choice to either "do the right thing"
> or rebel.

Actually, I was under the impression that Christian doctrine held that
all humans are _born_ sinners as a result of the Fall (Original Sin).
But then can Adam and Eve have been condemned for not "doing the right
thing" when they could not have foreknown what "right" or "good" was?
IMHO the Fall, then, results not from a wilful desire to do wrong, to
rebel and violate God's will, but rather from a kind of hubris: a
desire to become Godlike by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil.

Of side bar interest, who lied to whom in the Garden?  The serpent
claimed that eating the fruit would give the knowledge of good and
evil, while God claimed that eating the fruit would result in death.
So an interesting thesis emerges:  perhaps the figure who claimed
to be God in the Garden was in actuality the personification of evil
whom the Christians would later vilify as Satan, while the serpent
was, as the Gnostics claimed, actually the Good/Christ/God/etc.


> By sinning or rebelling we have shown ourselves flawed, and being
> flawed we are incapable of making things OK.  By taking our sins on
> Himself and willingly dieing on the cross, Jesus did what was
> necessary to satisfy God's requirements. No, I don't understand how
> Jesus' death did that.  No, I don't know why God would choose to
> create such a master plan for the world.

The whole sacrifice interpretation of Jesus's death seems a rather
bizarre twist to the rest of his life and teachings.  As this is the
central tenet of the Christian religion, it underscores the thesis
above about the questionable nature of the Christian God.  Any God who
would require a blood sacrifice as the necessary and indispensable
condition of righting a flaw of the human species is Draconian and
unworthy of respect.


-Jim

  ACTION == LIFE
        \     	   Jim Mason                              --------------
         \    	   NTI Systems Group                         Standard  
        / \   	   NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centre        Disclaimer 
       /   \  	   +1 205 544 2122                        --------------
 SILENCE == DEATH
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:44:44 GMT

In article <4373.29E152E1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> Which blatant miracles are we talking about? I don't count the Bible,
|> because I hardly view it as an objective source for facts :) Sort of
|> like reading Pravda in the Good Ol' Days about the Cold War.

Whoa there!  Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify today),
you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for facts that
can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?  What does
it say about historical events?

If the Bible (or any other source) is inaccurate about things you can
verify, then it should not be consulted for things you cannot verify.
If the claims that can be verified are verified, then the claims that
cannot be verified are worth considering.  (Again, look at what a jury
does in a court trial.)

|> I think we should probably take steps to define a miracle
|> sometime.

For starters how about: "an event that does not occur naturally and
cannot be genuinely reproduced by man but which most people would
recognize as the product of supernatural abilities".

I used "does not occur naturally" to eliminate weather events in general.
I used "genuinely reproduced by man" to eliminate what an illusionist can
make you think he's doing (David Copperfield can't really fly, but it sure
does look like he can).  I used "most people" so we can ignore the truly
insane who have no grip on reality.

|> It's shocking, the number of people who don't know the difference
|> between atheism and agnosticism. I guess that since much of the time I'm
|> arguing with believers, I seem atheist by comparison. I've only gone toe
|> to toe with atheists a couple of times, and it was really odd to find
|> myself arguing for God :)

Spoken like a true agnostic :-).

Note: for the benefit of the "silent readers" who may be wondering but
not asking, here's a brief description of the differences.
       an athiest believes there is no God,
       a Christian believes there is a God and Jesus is His Son,
       an agnostic believes it's impossible to know if there's a God.

Roughly (very roughly), athiest means "no God", Christian means "like Christ",
and agnostic means "no knowledge (about God)".

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: That sin question
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.174235.16711@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>, mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason) writes:
|> Actually, I was under the impression that Christian doctrine held that
|> all humans are _born_ sinners as a result of the Fall (Original Sin).
|> But then can Adam and Eve have been condemned for not "doing the right
|> thing" when they could not have foreknown what "right" or "good" was?

Adam and Eve were condemed for doing the one thing they had been told
not to do.  They knew.

|> IMHO the Fall, then, results not from a wilful desire to do wrong, to
|> rebel and violate God's will, but rather from a kind of hubris: a
|> desire to become Godlike by obtaining the knowledge of good and evil.

Becoming godlike was an aspect of the temptation offered by the serpent.

|> Of side bar interest, who lied to whom in the Garden?  The serpent
|> claimed that eating the fruit would give the knowledge of good and
|> evil, while God claimed that eating the fruit would result in death.
|> So an interesting thesis emerges:  perhaps the figure who claimed
|> to be God in the Garden was in actuality the personification of evil
|> whom the Christians would later vilify as Satan, while the serpent
|> was, as the Gnostics claimed, actually the Good/Christ/God/etc.

It all comes down to who you believe doesn't it.

|> The whole sacrifice interpretation of Jesus's death seems a rather
|> bizarre twist to the rest of his life and teachings.  As this is the
|> central tenet of the Christian religion, it underscores the thesis
|> above about the questionable nature of the Christian God.  Any God who
|> would require a blood sacrifice as the necessary and indispensable
|> condition of righting a flaw of the human species is Draconian and
|> unworthy of respect.

There's another way to look at it.  As the central tenet of the Christian
religion, it underscores the thesis of God's love for mankind and
His mercy towards us.  Any God who would love us enough to offer His
Son (somehow a part of Himself) to make up for our failings is most
worthy of our respect and returned love.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.180702.11905@infonode.ingr.com>, deaverpf@infonode.ingr.com (Paul F. Deaver) writes:
> Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
> > 
> >I believe it was a pagan group that picked Christmas on Dec. 25th, and
> >may even be responsible for Santa Claus. I sure can't find him in the
> >Bible :)
> 
> Santa, as we know him, was defined by the CocaCola Company.  
> 
> --
> Paul 

Actually, Santa occurs in many cultures, as Kris Kringle, St. Nicholas, etc.,
usually as a jolly, elderly man that comes bearing gifts for good children.
Also, see my other posting about when and why the CHRISTIAN church placed
Christmas on Dec 25.... but you are right - no kindly old Santas in the
christian bible, just lots of death, smiting, "laying with" anyone/anything
and blood/misery/guilt/sin for all. I'll take the Santa approach, thank you.

Larry "bash, bash, bash" Hughes
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Atheist (Was Re: Christian Bashing)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:09:40 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jeff W. Hyche says:
>>Actually, many of us agnotsic types do care if there is a God. We just
>>admit we don't know.
 
>Well I ask you this.  If god exist why does he hide himself from
>everything?  Why doesn't he make himself(herself) more visible? Why all
>the superstion?
 
Why are you asking ME this? You're preaching to the choir here :) I just
admitted that I don't know these answers. All I can do theorize.
 
>Would it not be better, for example, to scribe the 10 commandments on
>the moon for all to see?  Or have the voices of the angels echoing,
>instead of the background hiss of the big bang?  Why would he give us
>fossils of creatures that never would have walked the Earth if we were
>only 6000 years old as planets go?
 
It would certainly make believing in God easier for some of us.
 
>Simple logic.  I ask a question.  Can you give me the answer?
 
Nope. That's the nifty thing about being agnostic :)



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:07:40 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

KW> PSS: How did a stupid bunny ever get associated with the RESURRECTION
KW> (sp)?

I know I said I was leaving, but since this one isn't controversial, I'll 
answer.  It is because of the Pagans.


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lhughes@b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:33:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.175209.19639@infonode.ingr.com>, jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:
> ( Sorry about the other followup, I somehow goofed )
> 
> In article <1992Apr7.164917.28618@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
> I'm taking issue with those who say that since the Bible is so old,
> it has obviously been changed through the years.  There's no evidence
> to support that position.  The Bible is the best documented body
> of ancient writings on the planet.

BUZZZZZ! Wrong. The writing of Confucius are older, more accurate to the
orginal, and much better documented. In fact, there is a clear and indisputable
geneology from Confucius himself (actually from many generations before) down
to current living members of his line. However, since Jesus was too busy
preaching to get around to having kids, he (along with Santa, the Easter Bunny
and other well known historical figures) doesn't seem to have any current
descendents. Actually there is stronger proof of the existance of a real Saint
Nicolas than of Jesus (or the Easter Bunny).

Due to the length (over 5000 years) and continuity (compared with Western
culture that has many long stretches of total collapse over the same period)
of Eastern culture, there are many writings there that are much better
documented than the judeo-christian bible. Also much older, in many cases.
China already had a high civilisation (essentially contiguous with today's)
at the oldest times described in your bible.

BTW - one thing I've been wondering about - your bible (or at least the Old
Testament) makes it pretty clear that the Jews are the chosen people of your
God (and they will certainly confirm this, if asked) - what makes you non-
Jewish folk (which comprises the vast majority of christians) think that
Jehova is at all interested in YOUR welfare? Is that why you continually
try to supplant your god Jehova with one of your other gods, Jesus? Who
was, I might be so indiscreet to point out, a Jew. I still wonder how our
culture (or at least the christian subset of it) can consider the Semitic
culture to be the precursor of ours? Not that I have anything against them,
but we (the majority of Americans) are descended from considerably different
stock. Judeo-christian religion is at least as alien (and inappropriate, in
my opinion) to our culture as Voodoo, Hinduism, or Zen Buddhism. [NOTE TO
ZIONISTS: please do not construe this message as anti-semitic in any way!]

> James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
> DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
> jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
> (205) 730-8874               |

Larry "just trying to set the record a tad straighter" Hughes
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Wed,  8 Apr 92 11:26:02 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Jim Cobabe says:
>> Yeah, probably, but there are some who view things like rainbows
>> miraculous. I think we should probably take steps to define a miracle
>> sometime.
 
>What is the problem with those "who view things like rainbows
>miraculous"? I like to view some complex natural phenomena as evidence
>of divine work. This thinking comes so natural to me, it is difficult
>for me to imagine how others view such things.
 
I don't have a "problem" with people who think like this. But it's
mighty hard to define the term "miracle" if you include all
aesthetically pleasing manifestations of natural laws.
 
You can argue that since God created the natural laws, then their
manifestations are miraculous, but there are problems with this -
everything is a manifestation of a natural law, and if you call
everything miraculous, then the word loses meaning.
 
I don't believe in divergences from natural law either, and i think all
the people swallowed alive by great fish and all the seas parted and the
sun stopping and all the other stuff are probably just
"misrepresentations."
 
I guess your definition of a miracle is as valid as anyone else's. But
it sure is hard to get a coherent debate going about reasons to believe
in God with someone who lumps everything under the miracle label. :)
 
>I tend to view the more noticable, spectacular, or beautiful
>manifestations as "miraculous".
 
Why? What makes a tornado or lightning bolt more miraculous than a less
spectacular manifestation? Dropping a ball is a manifestation of the law
of gravity, just as a rainbow is a manifestation of the laws of
refraction and a lightning bolt is a manifestation of the laws of
electricity. Why is a "show-stopper" more of a miracle than something
mundane?



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: re: That sin thing
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:11:57 GMT

In article <4486.29EBD486@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> James Reed says:
|> >how can a finite being question the working of an infinite being?
|>  
|> You can question, but you may be discouraged if you think you'll
|> actually find answers :)
|>  
|> Part of it may be the word "infinite." Christians typically view God as
|> a being that encompasses all things except evil. Well, if you say that
|> God will do no evil, then you are placing a parameter on an infinite
|> being, thus rendering him finite.

What is infinity minus 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

By definition, it's still infinity, isn't it?

 - Les
From: Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Spray)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: pagan holidays
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:43:35 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Another thing I learned about was holly at Christmas time...The Indians 
called it Black Drink, and they crushed the berries and drank them.  This 
made them throw up, but they thought that they were getting rid of the 
un-clean spirits.  The French Catholics were outraged at this, and tried to do away with it....But alas, it's here today, and I won't say that my house isn't decorated with it at Christmas time (of course, when I move away from my parents, it will be different :) )..


--  
 * Chris.Spray@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion