HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:12:15 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <exukjb.140.716072863@exu.ericsson.se>
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>Concerning eternal consequences for inevitable acts there is perhaps
>an even more difficult and fundamental problem, and that is: How can
>an infinite consequence be metted out for a finite act undertaken
>with finite and imperfect comprehension of their consequences?  I
>have 60-80 years to get it right here in mortality; after that, bamm!
>I will suffer eternally for these actions.  But how can anything you
>do in a finite time justly result in a punishment that last
>throughout the everlasting eternities future?  Or, imagine taking an
>exam. You have 3 hours to complete the exam.  If you get a score
>below, say, 70, out of a possible 100, you're done for for the rest
>of your earthly life [you'll be locked in prison, we'll say.]  Not
>too reasonable.  But that's a finite time and a finite consequence;
>and >the exam also was probably administered by very imperfect
>examiners.  What I'm talking about is an exam that lasts 60-80
>years, and if you get a 70 (or maybe even anything less than 100, say
>99.9), then that's the end of the story for you, and that test is
>administered by an infinitely perfect and just being.  Any thoughts
>out there?

Your exam analogy is good, except that your score is based on what you
know.  God knows what we know and understand and will give us our
"score" based on what we do with what we know and understand.  So a
"100" is not out of reach of anyone.  For those of us who don't do all
we know we should (I'm in this group), we do have the opportunity to
repent for a better "score," but we still have to do the work.  Christ
doesn't do it for me, but makes it possible for me to try again.

Mark
-- 
   When I examined myself and my methods of thought I came to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my
talent for absorbing positive knowledge.
   -- Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:38:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.154610.17229@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>, davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
>There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
>Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
>during September in 1994. 

Jesus didn't know when the end was going to occur (Mark 13:32) and it didn't
seem to bother him.  Why, then, should we care when it's going to happen?

>This book contains 576 pages of detailed Biblical analysis and does not
>rely in any way on human speculation. 

Read this sentence.  Unless you know of a verse that reads, "Jesus will return
on <insert favorite guess>," then giving a date is PURE human speculation.

"But of that day or hour NO ONE KNOWS, not even the angels in heaven, nor the
Son, but the Father alone." [Mark 13:32 (NASB), emphasis mine]  Give it up.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:55:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.012026.8618@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
|
|The Question:
|     What does Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?
|The Answer:
|     All three believe they can be like God. 

      [ Some Stuff Deleted ]

|     Satan tempts Eve with the same lie in Genesis 3:5.  Satan
|     is speaking:  "For God knows that when you eat of it
|     your eyes will be opened, and you WILL BE LIKE God, knowing
|     good and evil."   Eve fell for it.

Apparently God fell for the lie as well (that one could be like God, knowing
good and evil). The last time I checked Genesis 3 I observed the following
verse (from NIV):

   22  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,
   knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand
   and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.motss
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:55:30 MDT
Followup-To: alt.sex,alt.sex.homosexual,alt.sex.motss,hiv.aids.issues,talk.religion.misc
Keywords: Dark Humor, Sex and Drugs
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep15.112902.22328@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>"If Drug Education Were Taught Like Sex Education."

Interesting comparison, though it kind of forgets that we really do expect
every child to have sex some time in their life.  In fact, most parents 
want their children to have sex hundreds or thousands of times in their life.
The only thing most parents are worried about is when their children start.

It would be nice, though, if schools would try to be more honest when teaching
about drugs and not try to scare students with things that aren't quite true.
But that is a completely different discussion...
----
"Dwayne Dibly?!" - The Cat (I've seen 5th season.  Have you?)
----
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:00:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <2573@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> In article <ksand-100992115824@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> [re: Matt 24:34]
> >
> >We have two positions concerning the 'This generation' definition:
> 
> At least two.

Which ones are the others, I'm curious?

> >a. This generation means the generation Jesus spoke to, the
> >more obvious interpretation. Matt 24:34 clearly then shows
> >that Jesus was a really bad futurist.

> No, from our perspective He was a very good preterist. :-)  If you examine
> the language Jesus employed (in Matt. 24:4-34) in light of the OT
> prophectic/apocalyptic language, you'll soon discover that He was clearly
> speaking of the events surrounding the destruction (punishment) of
> Jerusalem that occurred in AD70.

Well, I don't agree! If we take the concept 'this generation', it's
either the one he spoke to, or the one we have today. I don't see
any other rational explanations,  unless the translation of 'Tthis
generation' from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English have somehow
distorted Jesus' words.

So, any trick to counter-explain the issue of 'This generation'
is doomed to fail. In your case you are mapping the end of the 
world (right) with the destruction of Jerusalem. Either he
only spoke of this event, or about the final days. I have 
the personal opinion that he spoke of both things, the destruction
of Jerusalem but with a twist that the people of Israel would
raise against the oppressors within the lifetime of their generation.
And that happened, so in that sense he predicted it. However 
I assumed we spoke about this more from the theological perspective.
Right? Or did I bark on the wrong tree?
 
> >b. This generation implies every generation that listens 
> >to the message of Jesus, all the way from 2000 years ago till
> >today and tomorrow. This is not logical. ...
 
> At least you got that one right. :-)

So do we agree that either the things happened long time ago,
or that the prediction is no longer valid? Or is there a third
resolution, something more, eh, theological and could explain
why 'This generation' spawns both the past, today and the future?
I'm afraid it would require a lot of hockus pockus, unfortunately.

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
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:41:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


The Saturday Oregonian (Portland, Oregon, USA), Sept. 12, 1992, printed
an article in Section C, page 1, that said:

   The average American today is a white woman in her 30s of European
   descent....

   The typical American believes there is a devil but does not believe
   in ghosts or witches.

   She basically believes the Bible's version of how humanity was created,
   rather than the evolutionary view.

Alan Feuerbacher          |  As long as you think you have the truth, you
Tektronix, Inc.           |  will feel no need to pursue knowledge and
PO Box 500, MS 47-623     |  understanding.
Beaverton, OR  97077      |  There is often a difference between good
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com   |  sound reason and reasons that sound good.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:40:16 GMT

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> 	Pay attention. The stuff mentioned from ZPG was _stupid_. That's
>> what I said, that's what I meant, that's my objection, and I've even
>> explained why. What is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to defend the
>> statement that the world can only feed 3.2 billion, when the present
>> population is ~5 billion, and growing all the time? What do you think
>> they all eat, sand?

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>It may have escaped your parochial American attention, but currently in
>Somalia the United Nations observers estimate that some 5000 children are
>starving to death every day.
>Maybe the world really can feed 5 billion, but the evidence suggests
>otherwise.
>mathew

Mathew, I suggest you look at the case of Somalia a little closer.
Unlike places like Angola, Malawi, the northern part of South Africa, etc,
(which are suffering from 21 months of drought), the Somalian problem
is entirely self-induced. Somalia has not been in a drought and used to
have a strong agricultural sector capable of feeding the country and
many of its neighbours. The reason they cannot feed themselves has nothing
to do with being able to feed themselves, and everything to do with
civil war. If they would stop fighting, they do have the resources
to feed themselves.

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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:27:36 GMT


Bad news.  The end of the world came and went.  NONE of you are worthy!

;-)


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason     
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 21:26:12 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

Kalki writes:
DTW>>Everyone serves someone. God serves His devotees by reciprocating with
DTW>>them in loving relationships. God also serves those who don't like Him:
DTW>>even atheists depend on God to maintain the universal stability so that
DTW>>they can pursue their impossible dream of independence from Him.
DTW>>Atheists also serve others, if only to earn a living.
DTW>>Nobody anywhere in existence is exempt from servitude. Service is the
DTW>>eternal function of all living beings.


DTW responds:
DTW>        Wrong.
DTW>        I am an artist.  I paint what I like.  If people want to pay me for
DTW>something I made, I sometimes let them.
DTW>        I constantly avoid allowing things as mundane as my biological func
DTW>to force me to do anything.  I refuse servitude.  All my life I have been m
DTW>person, and do not bow down to anyone or anything.  I am master of all I am

Kalki responds:
In the past there were many fools who boasted of their so-called
"independence" from God and the laws of nature. Without exception, such
worthless fellows were unceremoniously annihilated and their illusory
"mastery" perished with them. While they lived, those fools were a
burden on the world, and when they were killed by the agents of God, the
world was overjoyed. If a demon will not learn from history, then he
will learn from the rod, there is no doubt about it.

---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:12:10 GMT

In article <segZD5y00VpN5D0IMN@andrew.cmu.edu> Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>The Smith decision was that which banned the use of peyote in 
>religious ceremonies.
If you're going to talk about Oregon v. Smith, do it right.
It did NOT ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
It PERMITTED the states to ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
These are two very different things.

>  But the results have been used to argue for
>the state in a variety of instances, and the results to religious 
>liberty have been disastrous in the three years since that time.
Hmmm...
What has actually happened?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Conservation of bogosity?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.194815.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes in part:
|> "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)

Is bogosity conserved?  Does the total bogosity of the universe always 
increase?  Can bogosity be converted from potential bogosity to
kinetic bogosity and vice versa?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:47:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bu90J1.5Dp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Dartanyan the Witchling) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-070992001430@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >If Jesus says that rather a camel could push itself through the
> >eye of a needle, than a rich man could get to heaven, and modern
> >Christians change Jesus' wordings that it means in the general sense,
> >then what could I say? Or what would Jesus say, when future followers
> >are changing his words?
> 
> 	Um, just thought I should clarify something here.
> 	"an Eye of a needle" back in that time, was a defense used agiainst horse-
> men to keep cavalries from invadinf fortresses.  It was an entranceway shaped
> roughly like this:

I've heard this description, and I could agree upon this, as long 
as the Bible would more explicitly have the statement that we
are dealing with a port instead of a real eye of the needle. In other
words it clearly shows how badly we could refer to a religious script
written 2000 years ago, for a culture that is more nomad/farmer
based than the one we live in just now.

Still, simple searches in the Bible clearly shows how Jesus detested
rich men, Pharisees, and in general the ruling elite. For me it's 
a clear indication of the revolution element behind his teachings.

For a similar view, read the story about Lazarus, that also directly
attacks the positions of the rich living in Israel during that time.

Still, we also have the words of Jesus:
LUK 14:12  Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a
dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy
kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a
recompence be made thee.

LUK 14:13  But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the
lame, the blind:

LUK 14:14  And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for
thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

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
From: pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon)
Subject: Re: Personal message to God
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:38:14 GMT

leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:

>Hey!  Are you listening?

>I'm still waiting for that lightning bolt, you know.

>Waiting.

>Waiting.

>Waiting.

>Hey!  Did you die or something?

>Go on then, strike me down!

>Hmm.  Looks like there's nobody home.  Damn.


>Leif the .sigless
>Yeah, yeah, standard disclaimer, do we have to go through that every time?


	Why bother to ask for a lightning bolt while God can treat you a 
	dinner in Heaven or in Earth, or even in Hell if you wish!  Be
	flexible, dude.  Don't just wait.  If you believe in the existence
	of God, make him treat you a dinner; otherwise just forget God and
	do something else.  Sounds good to you?

						Peter
.............................................................................
"In God we trust, all others pay cash."-- American motto.
.............................................................................
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 7 Sep 92 07:14:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep7.025152.28449@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) wrote:
> Don't get me started criticizing Christians (I'll be writing till next week).
> I agree that Jesus calls us to give up everything (that's called making Jesus
> Lord) and following him.  The passage you quote, however, is primarily focussed
> on how it is impossible for man to save himself because no matter how hard
> one tries, we will fall at some point.  Only God can save.  The guy wanted to
> know what he had to do to be perfect (see the first clause in your above
> statement).  Jesus answered, pointing out how the man had made his money too
> important.  Are American Christians guilty of this also?  Yes.

You know, the interesting point in this discussion is not what
Jesus said (and what I'm quoting). Instead it is how current day
Christians interpret it.

If Jesus says that rather a camel could push itself through the
eye of a needle, than a rich man could get to heaven, and modern
Christians change Jesus' wordings that it means in the general sense,
then what could I say? Or what would Jesus say, when future followers
are changing his words?

This is the reason I don't believe modern Christians follow the
advice of Jesus.

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.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mr. Clippingdale's religion
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:59:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Sep4.234810.19003@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
> Just curious. How do you arrive at objective truth? If you think there
> is such a creature, is empirical testing the only way to reach it?

With the proviso "If you think there is such a creature" [I do, but that's
unfalsifiable, c.f. solipsism], then I believe that empirical testing is
indeed the only way, because -- assuming that `objective' here is the opposite
of subjective, i.e. observer-independent -- empiricism and the associated
checks on reproducibility and the like are the only way to achieve
observer independence (actually a consensus which approximates it,
I guess...). By definition, an observer-independent, `objective' truth
must be the synthesis of the consistent observations of considerably more
than one person, and I know of no rigorous and consistent methodology other
than the scientific method for integrating multiple observations.

> Are there any untestable assertions that deserve the label objective
> truth? I know of no test to prove that I have a conscience, yet something
> troubles me when I violate standards of behavior I have set for myself.
> The quantity and quality of circumstantial evidence would lead me to 
> conclude that the existance of a faculty for distinguishing right and 
> wrong in my own conduct is objectively true.

I think this is perhaps an unfortunate example, in that I'd go at it
the other way round. It is observable that people in general attempt
to conform to certain (but subjective) moral standards. Having
observed this, we label the effect "conscience". While it's thus
objectively true that people in general exhibit conscience, it would
be difficult, as you say, to devise a test for a particular individual,
but in the absence of contrary evidence you could reasonably be assumed
to be typical, and thus your conscience is an objective phenomenon
under this null hypothesis. How does that sound? I have to say I'm not
100% happy with this argument, and input is welcome.

> How would you propose we rate the validity of an untestable assertion?

`Validity' is perhaps a little vague and context-dependent. As to its
objective truth, I don't think untestable assertions can be held to be
objectively true. Admittedly, this causes problems for the untestable
assertion "objective truth exists", which can't be held to be objectively
true. I guess you always have to assume your way out of solipsism.

> Dave Weaver

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep09.175555.9891@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>For example, it may be
>possible in the short term, to feed a few more Brazilians by knocking
>down rain forests to create farmland, but the medium and long term
>effects of such a policy are disastrous.

Small correction here. By cutting down the rain forest down to create
pastures for raising cattle, you are not helping to feed the general
population in Brazil because the beef is being exported out of the
country.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc