HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 30 Aug 92 09:38:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <fRUMSSQ@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.022722.8719@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I am not talking about closing ones eyes, I am talking about opening ones
>>spiritual eyes on a trial basis - one is then free to close them again if one
>>so chooses.  You cannot prove your way to God; knowledge of Him must depend
>>on faith - which does mature into certainty if given a chance (and the faith
>>is true).  You can accuse me of all the illogical, irrational things you like
>>- the fact of the matter is that Christ lives in me!
>
>And how can one open one's spiritual eyes, [BTW: the concept of spiritual
>eye is Hindu, not Christian], if one is following faith blindly? Blind
>faith is not seeing period, as to which eyes are doing the not seeing,
>that is a different question. Of course blind faith is very certain,
>after all it is blind. When one is being led blindly down a path, one
>knows for certain that one has blind faith in the leader and one know's
>for certain that one's fate is out of the hands of the one and in the
>hands of the leader. Blind faith in the leader, that is what blind faith
>is. It is the certainty of knowing that one is being led by the leader
>and not one's own actions. This is also called denial of individual
>responsability. The Lord delivered you and your kind FROM slavery, now
>follow the command and walk the freedom walk and talk the freedom talk.
>Blind faith is a return to the institution of slavery, against the
>wishes and action of the Lord. Blind faith is the tool of the Christian
>Devil. It is he who is the slave master for those who wish to disbelieve
>that the Lord delivered us FROM slavery, it is he who is the leader of
>those who aspire towards blind faith. And the fate of the blind faith
>believers is certain.

You just shot yourself in the foot big time.  You see, we have been delivered
from slavery to the world, but guess what?  In its place is "slavery" to God.
Who better to lead a blind person down a path than his creator?  This is not
avoiding responsibility - I must still put one foot in front of the other.
The only difference is that God is telling me where to put it, which is much
more trustworthy than me telling me where to put it.  BTW, the whole concept
of being a "slave" to God is VERY Biblical...  I _do_ have freedom in this
slavery, but by the following definition:

   Freedom is the ability to do what you know is right, not whatever you
   want.

John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:51:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep1.041151.20613@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) wrote:
> In article <1992Aug31.082509.5855@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> [In talk.religion.misc] 
> > 	Nevertheless (evolution) is false. In this newsgroup there has been  three 
> > 	non-evolutionist biologist. Also, none of the evolutionists have been 
> > 	proved to be biologist. 
> > 
> > 	So, if only those that know about things would talk, there would be no 
> > 	confusion at all. And I am far more biologist than those evolutionists,
> > 	no matter where I am majoring at. 
> 
> Antii appears, despite his proud boast above (some would call it arrogant), to
> be a little shy of talk.origins. So, old Finnish buddy, I've taken the liberty
> of crosposting this thread to t.o. so that you can display your vast learning 
> to your equally qualified peers. We mere mortals will be grateful to simply
> watch and coo in awe and wonder as you take on a couple of hundred other 
> biologists single-handed.

I must once again state that Antti is in no way a good representative
of the Finnish high school system, one where the biology teaching
including evolution is of a very high standard.

Cheers,
Kent
another Finnish buddy
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:08:19 GMT

mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>She really wants a religion which emphasizes taking responsibility for
>ones actions and not blaming your _choices_ on fate.  Granted you may
>not have that many good options, but between the ones you have you
>ought to do the best you can.  Any religion that encourages people to
>be so satisfied with the status quo that they can't try to improve things
>is a net loss.

  christianity does not advocate accepting the status quo.  why do you
think so many christians are getting criticized for speaking up about
the ills of society?  i actually found that without an ultimate, absolute
authority in life [god] there is no justification for me to do anything
good.  not just that i'll be punished for doing evil, but to know god
means to do his will and live a righteous life.  without god, i found
no compelling reason to do anything good and my life dwindled into
cynicism and despair and lack of concern for anyone until i found morality
rooted in the absolute of god, rather than in the whims of people
[bill clinton is the answer for that].  and for those who'd like an
excuse to bow out of personal accountability for life, that's
bush.  somewhere in the middle is truth.  jesus beats both bush
[and his republican cronies] and clinton.

>Morality, what is right, comes from human beings and how they interact.  It
>just doesn't make _sense_ to claim it comes from anything else.

  not even if god created us and has some ideas about how we should live?


---                          
     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?" 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:06:53 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: >skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
: >I can't remember if I got this same reply earlier here or via email.
: >Since I haven't seen a reply yet, I will risk repeating it.  Orig.Sin.
: >places the blame for the world's woes directly on us.  Lack of OS places
: >the blame directly on God since he created the world such that
: >evil was unavoidable.  What does this say about the justness of God?
: 
: When asked for one's opinion in a survey form, one does not expect to
: have to justify his opinions upon answering (unless one is being
: baited, perhaps).  

If I was baiting, it wasn't maliciously.  I am just trying to 
understand a position that is foreign to me.

: That aside, I will say that when you write Original
: Sin (capitalized) I assume you refer to the specific doctrine held by
: some Christians denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic Church?)  That
: exegesis does not appeal to me.  However, lack of that exegesis does
: not necessarily place the blame for evil directly on God.  It leaves
: open that possibility, but there are certainly other possibilities to
: consider.  The above is a false dichotomy.

I will grant the possibility, but I am unaware what the other 
possibilities could be.  Could you give me an example or two?

: >Why don't they seem to be willing to stand up to those Christians
: >who do?  I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but it 
: >seems that way sometimes.
: 
: What would you have them do?  
: 
: They may be busy doing things that are, in their opinion, far more
: important than politics.  My opinion is that working for or against
: political agendas is just a big waste of time for the Christian.

There has been an article posted in this group about religious leaders
repremanding Bush in the Sunday NY Times.  I take back everything
nasty I said about their tacit complicity in the religious inquisition
of Geo. Bush.  I have acquired a fresh hope for humanity.  Tolerance
is not a waste of time.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Omnipotence, Concepts, Existence
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:21:11 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:



>Re: what God can and cannot do


>The most amusing story I've ever heard in this connection is the following:

>A seminary student was brought before his superiors after his third failure
>at his final exams. Upon examining his work, his superiors noted that he
>had, each time, refused to acknowlege the omnipotence of God.
>	"What's this all about?" they asked the unhappy student. "Don't you
>accept that Our Lord and Saviour is omnipotent?"
>	The student squirmed nervously, then said: "Well, sirs, I've thought
>and thought about it, and I just can't understand how it can be true!"
>	"What is your difficulty?"
>	"Well, sirs, as far as I can see, even the Lord can't beat a
>full house with three-of-a-kind!"

>Yuk yuk yuk...!

>Seriously, though, any comments?  Does this say anything important about the
>concept of omnipotence or not? I can't decide!

Cute!  But no, it doesn't.  If the Lord agreed to play by the rules, then
He would acknowldege that a full-house would win the pot.  Of course, He
could unilaterally change the rules....and we couldn't stop him!

 -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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:51:38 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>> In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> >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!

>May I suggest that you are slightly paranoid?

>Cheers,
>Kent
	May I suggest that you are slightly blind ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:57:32 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <fRUMSSQ@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>And how can one open one's spiritual eyes, [BTW: the concept of spiritual
>eye is Hindu, not Christian], ...

Not Christian??!!  What saith the Scriptures?

  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in
  parables?
  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the
  mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
  abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
  hath.
  THEREFORE SPEAK I TO THEM IN PARABLES: BECAUSE THEY SEEING SEE NOT; AND
  HEARING THEY HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND.
  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing
  ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and
  shall not perceive:
  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
  hearing, and THEIR EYES THEY HAVE CLOSED; lest at any time they should
  see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with
  their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
  For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have
  desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to
  hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.  (Matt.
  13:10-17)

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:29:43 GMT

Jake Rose writes:
>I can make up gods who are forgiving too, Stephen.  For example, Jumbo the
>Flying Frog, who hops from planet to planet, has forgiven you for your sin
>of disbelief in it.  There you are.  Counter that one.

(Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  well jumbo the flying frog didn't die for anyone.  if you say he did
>i cannot accept your authority because you aren't god.

What's the betting that Stephen is good at geometry and his favourite
shape is ... a circle!

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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 19:23:41 GMT

In article <graham.715486573@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that there is only
>>a finite amount of arable land on which to grow crops.  Eric pointed out
>>that the amount of this land is decreasing due to soil erosion, and the
>>yield of the remaining land is decreasing because of the reduced use of
>>fertilizer.  I don't think it does take a great deal of thought to see
>>that our ability to produce food is decreasing.  Perhaps you disagree
>>with one or more of the premises, but if so, I wish you'd say so rather
>>than just ranting and raving.
>
>Actually I disagree with the assumptions, yes, namely the assumption
>of "finite arrable land". Go build a big donut shaped space-craft with
>big windows. Stick it in orbit and watch the food grow. Then make another
>and another and another ..

Oh, I agree absolutely.  I think that, in time, technology may well provide
the answers.  I still haven't figured out why we would ever wish to have
umpteen trillion hairless apes inhabiting this planet, but if that's
what we decide is best, I'm sure that technology will allow us to do it.
Eventually, we'll probably be able to put fusion reactors somewhere as well,
in order to provide for all our energy needs.  But I was more concerned
with what is economically feasible given today's technology.  After all,
it's today's technology that must be used to feed the 5.5 billion
existing people, and it's today's technology that must be used to try
to clean up the mess they make of the environment.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Btpp3z.Cyw@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<1992Aug29.022722.8719@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:05:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.022722.8719@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I am not talking about closing ones eyes, I am talking about opening ones
>spiritual eyes on a trial basis - one is then free to close them again if one
>so chooses.  You cannot prove your way to God; knowledge of Him must depend
>on faith - which does mature into certainty if given a chance (and the faith
>is true).  You can accuse me of all the illogical, irrational things you like
>- the fact of the matter is that Christ lives in me!

And how can one open one's spiritual eyes, [BTW: the concept of spiritual
eye is Hindu, not Christian], if one is following faith blindly? Blind
faith is not seeing period, as to which eyes are doing the not seeing,
that is a different question. Of course blind faith is very certain,
after all it is blind. When one is being led blindly down a path, one
knows for certain that one has blind faith in the leader and one know's
for certain that one's fate is out of the hands of the one and in the
hands of the leader. Blind faith in the leader, that is what blind faith
is. It is the certainty of knowing that one is being led by the leader
and not one's own actions. This is also called denial of individual
responsability. The Lord delivered you and your kind FROM slavery, now
follow the command and walk the freedom walk and talk the freedom talk.
Blind faith is a return to the institution of slavery, against the
wishes and action of the Lord. Blind faith is the tool of the Christian
Devil. It is he who is the slave master for those who wish to disbelieve
that the Lord delivered us FROM slavery, it is he who is the leader of
those who aspire towards blind faith. And the fate of the blind faith
believers is certain.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:12:13 GMT

Kent Sandvik writes:

>Stephen Buckley wrote:
>> Kent Sandvik writes:
>> 
>> >Yet again, the issue of omnipotence clearly states that a being
>> >is able to create whatever, including perfect situations. God was
>> >not able to create a perfect situation. That implies that he's not
>> >omnipotent.
>> 
>>   no that's not the implication.  granting humans free will means he
>> won't necessarily create whatever he wants all the time.

>Omnipotence implies that this God is able to create a situation where
>free will and happiness works hand-in-hand. He wasn't able to do this,
>and he also regretted this by trying to kill the whole human population
>with the Flood (also killing all the poor animals, why, I don't know).

  please go read your bible again and learn how god didn't try and then
fail in killing everything.  you're misreading the bible to portray the
flood this way.  please see genesis 6-9.

> > >> >Why doesn't god speak to me?
>> >>   god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>> >> tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.
> 
>> >Note that this is true of most other mythological beings, such as Zeus
>> >or Oden. A true omnipotent God should manifest itself to any intelligent
>> >being.
>> 
>>   except when that person doesn't want to see god.  the bible says that
>> in that case, that person will not see god.

>Well, I *want* to see God, frankly speaking. I'm not an atheist. I'm
>still member of the Lutheran church. However, the Christian God is
>absent from my life. I really want him to pop up so it would explain
>why millions of people believe in this hoopla. So far I have not seen
>anything. Thus your proposal is not valid.

  then i suggest you read the bible.  his word should give you a lot
more sense of what he's offering you than i could ever relate to you 
over the net.  read the gospels to learn about the person of jesus,
philippians for a sense of joy found in him and ephesians for a sense
of love and action that leads to the righteous way.  if you're seeking
god, be sure to keep an open mind and don't be quick to emotionally
condemn things that initially may bug you.  be wary of irrational
emotional responses against aspects of christianity, and seek the
truth with a truly seeking mind--not a mind quick to condemn.

---                          
     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?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:29:47 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug24.132052.23288@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
> 
> 2) The founding fathers were quite vocal about preventing religion (vis.
> Christianity) from interfering with the government.  Do you believe
> that Christianity has cleaned up its act enough to be given a second
> chance (especially considering the fundamentalists seem to be in the
> vanguard of such efforts)?  If fundamentalism is just a minority,
> why do moderates allow them to set the agenda?

Absolutely not!  One of the most basic beliefs in Christianity is freedom
of choice. That is why in the nations which have (or had) a Christian
heritage we have freedom of religion. If some narrow minded fundy wants
to take away that freedom by imposing Christianty through the ballot box
tell him to go read his Bible. 

There's an Islamic dude out there who might want to tell us why it is
illegal in many Islamic countries to covert to another religion.


> Jeff Young
-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre| E-Mail       b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury          | or         cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand         | Phone +64 3 364-2331 Fax +64 3 364-2332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.082312.26247@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
>others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
>because I want it to be.  Doesn't that mean anything?

Yeah, it means something.

It means a very condescending attitude towards Jews and Muslims, for one.
What makes you think that your faith is "mature" and provides "assurance",
while theirs doesn't?
--
"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)