HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<fRYJ6pY@quack.sac.ca.us> <ksand-310892203543@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:13:23 GMT

In article <ksand-310892203543@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>See the excellent answer from a Buddhist concerning self-realization.

I saw it. It was good, but easy for a Westerner to take out of context.

>You know, all religions are not the same!

Differences are only apparant due to human perception. Standard Buddhist
field of opposites issue. The transcendent is transcendent, the creator is
the creator. In a sense the Christians are right, there is only one.

>... as for atheist/agnostic thoughs, I do care shit about becoming
>a God. Does that mean that I'm a Christian? According to your
>earlier statements, yes. Sigh.

I doubt that any of my previous statements pidgeon-holed you into the
Christian mold. If you say you are a Christian, then you are a Christian. It
is you who is the judge of that.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:33:44 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <sbuckley.714808795@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>
>>I suggest you read the man's post again, he questioned the edict against
>>pre-marital sex..You have chosen to skirt this issue entirely.
>
>  actually, the relevant part of douglas's post that i was refering to
>doesn't appear in your post.  in that relevant part, douglas claims that
>christianity assersts that sex is disgusting.  a misunderstanding of
>extreme proportions [especially for people like my soon-to-be married
>roomate!  :) ]

Some forms of chistianity do. The prohibition on premarital sex among most
forms implies this...

>>It is not just the usenet & has nothing to do with it. It is a large-scale
>>phenomenon, diseases like pat robertson are an example, as are Jesse helms
>>and Pat Buchanan
>
>  sorry, i don't follow american politics *that* closely.  if you can
>give an example of coerced belief in god, i'll probly have a response.

Its ubiquitous; some are trying to ban certain types of music & art because it
offends their religious sensibilities (ala Jesse Helms), prayer in public
schools is under consideration, our damn coins say, "in god we trust" 
Chew on these; I will supply more...

>>on birth-controll (which come from the biblical "sin of Onan") are largely
>>responsible for the ecological disasters around the world. Idiots like you
>>who look starry-eyed at the afterlife are also responsible for not caring
>>to preserve the eco-system for our progeny.
>
>  i'm afraid you haven't seen my enviro-activism track record.  i will

NO and I don't care about your individual track record. It is christianity as
a whole I am concerned with...

>not debate the sources of poverty and ecological disasters because we will
>end up agreeing on most of it.  my argument is that while the bible not
>only says we are responsible for stewarding the planet, there is also
>the responsibility that goes along with that privelage.  while that

Bible quotes please. You are reading in something that isn't there.

>responsibility has been heinously avoided in the past [and the present :( ]
>the bible and god's word cannot be shown to advocate abrogation of that
>same responsibility.  for what we do with the planet in the name of god-
>granted stewardship is part of our relationship with god.  
>
-Scott
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:39:41 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>In article <adams.715618666@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>the Trinity assigns male anothropomorphisms to the 'Father' and 'Son', the
>>Holy Spirit is arguably female*...;-)  "Wisdom/Sophia"....
>>
>>* Nicene Creed notwithstanding.  I'm referring to the OT references...

>I assume you are saying the the OT references the Holy Spirit as
>feminine in nature.  If not please clarify.

>Also, could you cite and/or quote some of these OT references.
>The NT refers to the Holy Spirit as a He.

The references in the OT to 'Wisdom' are feminine in nature.  'Ruach' I
belive (or Sophia)...according to both my pastor (not that I belive him
necessarily!  and an orthodox Jewish friend).

 -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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:47:11 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug27.010746.17349@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
>>planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
>>will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
>>exist regardless of the actions of humans.
>
>That's extremely astute of you Gregg.  You have my deepest apologies
>for giving you the impression that I meant actual vaporization of
>the planet.  I should have said "destroy all life on the planet".
>Jolly good show.

Actually I heard that at the height of the arms race it would have been
possible to destroy the planet if all the warheads had been detonated
simultaneously and at strategic points.  Not just kill everything - actually
blow it all to bits.  Just thought I'd share that. :-)

John M.
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 04:16:10 GMT

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:


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

>>  i've heard the pi=3 thing refered to a few times and i can't find it
>>in kj or niv, can someone cite me chapter and verse?  thanks.

>1 Kings 7:23, plus a little interpretation.

  wow, i'm glad someone has finally found the difinitive length of a
cubit, then.  :)
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: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:24:57 GMT

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?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:04:19 GMT

In article <67355@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

> The seekers of signs and wisdom see the point of our preaching (the cross) 
> as foolishness, but to us who believe it is the power of God (I Cor 1:17-31).  
> 
> From the Book of Revelations, we find that "the testimony of Jesus
> is the spirit prophecy" (Rev 19:10) and from Paul's writtings that "the things
> of the spirit are hidden from those without the spirit."

So we are far too wise to understand your religion?
Hey, I can live with that!

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:51:15 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>But, at the same time as they were expelled, God promised Eve that her
>>'seed' would bring on a savior to redeem mankind.

>Where does it say that?

From a paper I wrote for a theology class:

I. In the Beginning: The Edenic Covenant
   What is Genesis trying to tell us in the story of creation found in
verses 1:1-2:3?  The events described demonstrate God's direct action in
creation of the universe, and man with it.  Clearly, the intent of the
redactor is to establish the Sovereignty of God and His control over all
creation.  It also explains and justifies God's right to do as He pleases
with His creation.  This conclusion is inescapable irrespective of whether
or not we take a literal view of creation.

   Similarly, the story of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 2:4ff shows us
that even given only one rule, man is not able to keep it.  Declaring the
literalness of the story would do nothing to improve the message found
there.  God establishes Adam in the Garden, a symbol for the state of
perfection.  The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes mans' free
will, and the Tree of Life symbolizes the promise of eternal life, finally
fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Once violated, this state of perfection will
not again exist until the end times (Rev 21).  God gives Adam total freedom
(Gen. 2:15-17), with but one limitation.  It is in light of the violation
of this limitation and following Adam and Eve's rebellion against God that
God establishes a covenant with Eve.

   We find this covenant in the conversation between God and the serpent
where God tells the serpent that

        "(15)...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
        between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
        and you will strike his heel." (Gen 2, NIV)

This antagonism is used to symbolize the struggle between good and evil,
played out in human history.  The promise is fulfilled in Christ's
suffering and victory over death and Satan, in which we all will eventually
share.  Paul makes a clear allusion to the promise in his comment that
"...the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet"  (Rom 16:20,
NIV).

-----

See also Gal 3:19-20.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15085 alt.atheism:16066
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:56:20 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <l9qqj2INNs92@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Brian Kendig) writes:
>                                                             The
> central theme of Christianity is that there exists a god who is
> responsible for creating all people.  Now, of course, this god wants
> to be loved, but it's easy to create something that loves him by
> definition, and this kind of love really doesn't mean much.  So he
> puts people to the test so that they profess their love for him by
> _choice_,
> 
>Hmm. I don't think so. It seems to me this is an awfully 
>poor reason for accepting any religion: that there exists
>a creator who desires to be worshipped, with no immediate
>impact on an individual if s/he doesn't worship that 
>diety. This seems more like a zookeeper and pet relationship
>
>(IMO) I think you may want to rethink this one. You may want to
>think about what motivates people to think about religion
>in the first place.
>
>Dano

Another concern: the proferred definition does not seem to
distinguish Christianity from any other mono-theism, and, with some
slight alterations in the analysis, would be compatible with many
polytheisms.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:40:08 GMT

In article <fRJfri0@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>KJV: 1 Kings 7:23:
>And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it
>WAS round all about, and his height WAS five cubits: and a line of
>thirty cubits did compass it round about.
>
>JPS: 1 Kings 7:23: [ISBN:0-8276-0252-9]
>Then he made the tank(1) of cast metal, 10 cubits across from brim to
>brim, completely round; it was 5 cubits high, and it measured 30 cubits
>in circumference.
>(1) Lit. "belly"; exact force of Heb. uncertain
>
>----
>Notice once again the translation problems the KJV has. The key here is
>that a "completely round" circle of diameter or distance from brim to
>brim of 10 cubits would have a circumference of 31.415926... , not 30
>cubits. This is Pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and
>it is a unit-less constant, so the exact size of cubit makes no
>difference, it could just as well be feet or meters or whatever. And so
>we have just one example of many where the words of the Bible are false,
>thus the Bible is not 100% true. But most of us already know that, the
>Bible is in fact a myth. Still a good myth, nonetheless. But not
>factual.

Almost (if not all) arguments against the validity of the Bible are such as
this...  Let me ask you something:  If I asked you how many miles you had put
on your car would you tell me 50,000 or 51,254?  If I asked you how much you
weighed would you say 180 lbs. or 183.6 lbs?  What is the captain always
telling Data?  To cut out the needless accuracy when the general concept is
all that is required.  This has nothing to say about the accuracy of the
Bible.  God has always been faithful to fulfill His Biblical promises, and
the "damning discrepancies" of the Bible just are not there unless you
nitpick your way into absurdity.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<ksand-290892182837@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:14:33 GMT

some misled Christian wrote:
There are *many* schools of thinking where self-realization implies
self-termination. So for instance in Buddhism, englightenment ends
in termination. So you became a God and then you kill yourself. Does
that make sense concerning worshipping yourself. I love myself so 
much I will terminate myself. Ugh.
 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) wrote:
That sounds like Christianity, not Buddhism. Buddha acheived enlightenment
and came back to play with the children. Joyful participation in the sorrows
of the world, that is the way of Buddha. Not HATRED of humanity and human
life. Not desires to be a martyr. And enlightenment is not becoming God, that
is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

In article <ksand-290892182837@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but aren't we talking about Nirvana,
>and the concept of self-realization where some Christians stated
>that belief in non-God implied directly belief in self. In that
>sense your answer provided enough ammunition to kill this myth.

I'm not sure I grasp your question, would you care to rephrase it?
Christianity has been spreading propaganda about non-Christian religions
for a long time and unfortunately many people have assumed that
longevity of propaganda and non-rebutal by those falsely accussed means
truth. Most Christians know nothing about other religions, they have
shut themselves of from other possibilities. They have eyes and yet they
do not see. As for Nirvana, yes this was acheived by Buddha and normally
this is the ticket out of town, as Christians would say it is assurance
of heaven and perpetual life in the Lord's Kingdom. It is very significant,
however, that Buddha choose to come back, to restore the favor, after
all it is from us that Buddha learned of enlightenment. Joyful
participation in the sorrows of the world. Think about what that means.
The truth is that Heaven is right here, right now, only most don't see
it. Hell is not seeing this. Yes, we are seperated from the Kingdom of the
Lord, but not by time, by perception. You are now a human being, fulfil
that potential and do the right thing. The time to leave will come soon
enough. When you are of flesh, cling to that flesh and be flesh. The
time will come to leave of the flesh and that is the time to leave, not
before. Most of us fail to see the value of flesh while we are alive but
cling to the flesh as we are breathing our last breaths when we should
be prepared to leave. Does any of this make sense? To the average
Westerner, Eastern religions look like philosophies. To the average
Easterner, Western religions look like multi-level marketing.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:45:46 GMT

In article <l9qqj2INNs92@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
|>  
|> Hmm. I don't think so. It seems to me this is an awfully 
|> poor reason for accepting any religion: that there exists
|> a creator who desires to be worshipped, with no immediate
|> impact on an individual if s/he doesn't worship that 
|> diety. This seems more like a zookeeper and pet relationship
|> than anything else.

Or livestock.  After all, we are Christ's sheep, and he
is our shepherd.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: News from Alaska
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:17:36 GMT
Organization: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu explains it all to us:

<fine intro to Piaget deleted>

 When you choose to sit on the Rock of Faith, you are firmly
 anchored and can no longer experience disequilibrium in things
 that challenge your religion.  You can no longer accommodate new
 data, for that would require you to change your schema, which has
 been set in stone and is immutable.  You must therefore either
 reject the data outright (like the Flat-Earth Society) or you
 must assimilate the data by changing it (like the Institute for
 Creation Research).  You have ceased to learn, and the mind that
 cannot learn cannot think.

IMO, it is too bad atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu will not accomodate
other definitions of faith; it must be sad to resign oneself
to the end of learning, and to the beginning of intellectual
slavery. I wonder why anyone would want this?

 If new, compelling evidence of the existence of supernatural
 entities were to explode across tomorrow's front page, most
 atheists would delight in wrestling with the new data.  They

Weak, weak, weak.

This is an unsupported sweeping generalization that does
not make sense when viewed with the earlier spouting of
Piaget: if people are reluctant to accomodate objects
which do not fit in with their dominant world view,
then this holds true whether one is an atheist or not.

 There is a real and basic difference between atheists and
 religionists, and they cannot be compared in most contexts.  They
 are two different animals, or apples and oranges, but not two
 sides of the same coin.  

Since the anonymous atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu does not bother
to define "religionist" we shall never know whether what
atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu is saying makes any sense.

 <simplistic unsupported syllogism deleted>
 
 <example trying to use an exception to prove a rule deleted>

 <name-calling deleted>

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:25:09 GMT

	Nevertheless it 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. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 01:23:06 GMT

In article <sbuckley.715470175@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) writes:
|>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.
|>
|>  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.
|>---                          
|>     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?" 
             
WHOA!!!! Did a GOD say that Jesus died for anyone?  Or was this written/spoken
by a human?  (Don't say God spoke through the people, because Jake could
easily say that the Frog was speaking through him!)
If I am to only accept the authority of a god, then I can't use anything
written/said by people.  I have never met a god, nor have I read anything 
written by a god (holy books are written by humans about gods; even with
divine insperation. Divine insperation is the CLAIM that a god worked through
them.  But we cannot accept their authority on that claim, because they
themselves
are not gods!  

Brian /-|-\