HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:22:14 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:

>Here is my two cents on Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that Noah's Flood
>caused tremendous changes in the earth's surface due to the weight of
>the flood waters.

>Their book _Good News to Make You Happy_ says on page 82:

>"The tremendous pressures involved would bring about great changes on the
>surface of the earth, pushing up mountain ranges and forming depressions to
>receive the waters.  Within the space of about one year these had receded
>into the oceans as we know them today."

>The JW's contention about mountains forming because of Noah's flood is
>therefore seen to have no basis in physics.  Much other data show that it
>has no basis in geology, either.

The stock answer I've heard to this is that you are claiming uniform
physics when there is no 'proof' of this.  In other words, the laws of
physics 'changed' from then to now.  This is how they explain away carbon14
testing...decay was *much* faster pre-flood...so therefore the readings are
all wrong....

Or so they say....

 -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: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<sbuckley.714076351@sfu.ca> <1992Aug17.195643.14230@cs.yale.edu> 
	<sbuckley.714086477@sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:01:06 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714086477@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
<     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?"                   
And just what are you and your kind going to do with my Daughter?
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:00:39 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1269@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
>
>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>Gen. 7:19
>
>--
>
>That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
>knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.
>
>Mark
>-- 


If one believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, one has no choice
but to believe that when Gen. 7:19 says "*all* the high mountains were
covered" it means exactly that.  Any other interpretation is putting words
in the mouth of the Bible writer and is only an attempt to reconcile the
Bible's statement with the fact that there is absolutely no geological
evidence for a global deluge.

If anyone wants to see what a really *huge* flood does, take a look at the
geology of Eastern Washington and Oregon.  About 16,000 years ago the Clark
Fork River in Idaho was periodically dammed by the Cordilleran ice sheet
coming down through British Columbia.  About every 50 or so years the ices
dam would break and spill about 400 cubic miles of lake water over Washington
and Oregon, creating the land features now called "scabland".  Some of the
leftovers are giant ripple ridges like you see at the beach, only they are
miles apart and up to 500 feet high.  They can be seen flying over the area.
What a sight from 30,000 feet just after sunrise!  Something like this
happened in miniature in 1986, when the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska blocked
the mouth of Russell Fiord for about four months and then let loose.

The entire Columbia Gorge area and the Willamette Valley in Oregon contain
scattered boulders, often found lying on low hilltops, that were rafted in
by icebergs from the broken glacier.  In every case the rocks were composed
of material whose nearest source was southern British Columbia.

There are huge gravel bars all over Eastern Washington and the Columbia
Gorge, which could only have been made by the roughly 1000 foot deep water
as it scoured out the scablands.  The scouring stops at well defined level,
which gradually drops in elevation as the mouth of the Columbia River is
approached.  A hike in any of the side streams of the Columbia still shows
traces of the muck that the flood dumped as it passed.

Much other geological evidence could be described, but the best source for
the layman on this flooding, called the Missoula or Bretz floods, is
_Cataclysms on the Columbia_, John Eliot Allen and Sam C. Sargent,
Timber Press, 1986.

The point is that it is precisely the lack of evidence of such geological 
disaster worldwide that forces thinking fundamentalists into the dubious
position of claiming the Bible does not mean what it says.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:55:54 GMT

In article <64LM03pw59ca00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

|> But after reading Jim Burke's article I decided to post this from a 
|> friend on the net, I hope he doesn't mind.    
|> 
|> The following helps clarify the concept of the trinity:

...lots of Biblical references to the diety of Jesus and the Holy Spirit deleted


I never denied the teaching of the New Testament that Jesus is diety.
I think it's a much harder case to try to prove the diety of the Holy
Spirit. I am not conviced that the Holy Spirit is intended as a separate
entity, or was simply a new way of refering to God as he existed on earth.
It is not at all clear.

Okay, let's grant that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all 
diety.  How do we get to the teaching that they are one and the same God?
The doctrine of the trinity does not deal with the diety of these entities,
but with the concept that they are one single entity with three personalities.
Where is this clearly taught (the operative word is clearly) in the Bible?
It is not.  As I have said before, the point was such a glaring problem
for the ancient Christians - I mean they _had_ to resolve the evident
polytheism of their teachings - that early Christians resorted to corruption
of original texts to try to give evidence of some "Trinity" teaching.
Why did they do that?  Because it was a raging controversy even then.
There was no clear-cut teaching of "Trinity" and these are people who should
have understood the ancient texts much better than we can.  

If you string together verses from here and there, then you can make some
kind of an argument.  People who interpret the Bible by such twists and
turns would have us believe that God left a jigsaw puzzle more complex than
any man has devised, and this is how we are supposed to learn about what
He wants from us and what His nature is.  (BTW, I capitalize out of respect
for others, not out of belief).  Of course, everybody disagrees on whom
God has chosen to reveal the true meaning of the jigsaw puzzle.  If this
is what He did, He certainly left a confusing mess behind.  By placing
different interpretations on translations and so forth, people make very
convincing arguments on both sides of a lot of issues.  You need to be a
scholar in ancient languages to try to figure out what each phrase intends
to say.  And even then, you can make mistakes.  If you are not such a 
scholar, you can only read what real scholars say, and they disagree.  

If it is so important to God for me to understand these things, He will
let me know.  I will not accept anyone's obscure interpretation of 
ancient writings as reveal the "truth".  
 



-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13911 talk.origins:9453
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:36:41 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.150821.27714@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>Unknown to who?  And how do you know that this undefined unknown limit even exists?
>}
>}	Unknown to the modern science. 

>Ah.  I see.  You personally know everything known to modern science.

	I know enough to say that. 

>}	Those are called "missing links". 

>By whom?

	By scientists. 

>You have got to be kidding.

	I'm afraid I'm dead serious. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:51:47 PDT

In article <1992Aug10.181110.22950@samba.oit.unc.edu>, on 10 Aug 92 18:11:10 GMT,
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

>
>
> (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>
>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>
>>I'm not quite sure how this got past the censors of the early Church,
>>but it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus did not regard
>>himself as God, and actually rebuked an admirer for using language which
>>might suggest that.
>>---
>>
>>    ====Jack====
>
>
>---- WHAT?  How do you conclude that Jesus says he is not God from this
>passage?  Maybe you just looked at too many O's  Jesus says that he is not
>good.  The only reason he said that was so that he wouldn't sound arrogant
>by accepting a praise meant for someone else probably.  Your reasoning
>here is not sound.
>
That's about the easiest question I've been asked this month. Because
Jesus clearly says that none is good but God alone. Since Jesus is
rebuking the man for calling him good, it is obvious that his reason
for doing so is that he does not want to arrogate to himself an
adjective that he believes should only be applied to God. Couldn't
be any simpler than that.

>Steve.Gross
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
>
    ====Jack====
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL 
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:14:03 EST

In article <1992Aug12.042540.24510@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> 
>>"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
>> Who, being in very nature God, does not consider equality
>>	 with God something to be grasped, being made himself
>>	 nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made
>>	 in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man,
>>	 he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even
>>	 death on a cross!"
>>	                                      - Philippians 2:5-8
> 
> MORPHE actually means 'form', pure and simple.

leaving aside the possibility that Paul's thought could sometimes
be, well, muddled... are you saying that he meant: "being in very
FORM, God..."  What does this mean? That Jesus was an angelic creature 
of some sort before his incarnation? This doesn't seem any more
satisfying than the interpretation you're arguing against.

   ando.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:32:13 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <92227.140707RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>Let's get serious. John mentions that Jesus was continually doing good.
>Let me cite from John's gospel (which John Emery likes to use more often
>than other gospels to defend Trinity), 2nd chapter:
>"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him (Jesus),
>they have no wine."
>"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
>
>Is that a way to address one's mother? How could Jesus have forgotten
>that this "Woman" had carried him for more than 9 months and perhaps
>suckled him for two years, and had borne endless insults and injuries
>on account of his 'miraculous' birth? Is there no term for mother in
>his language?  All these, of course, if one has to accept John's gospel-
>account of Jesus's supposed life and teachings.

In other words, just ignore the rest of the story?  Like the fact that Mary
didn't take Jesus' statement the way you do.  Or the fact that Jesus does
do what His mother asks of Him, in obedience to the commandment you say
he forgets.

  -- 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
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: You don't get it, do you? (was Laura questions)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.093651.7836@u.washington.edu> 
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>Why do you Christians feel the need to force your belief on any one
>you see?

Because along with the Christian Jesus you also get the Christian Devil
with all of his great tricks, like conversion, fisher of men, FREE gift
gimick, you are evil by default and must be saved, Jesus committed
suicide and it is your fault so you should feel guilty, sex is evil,
women are evil, Heaven is not on earth, all earthly things are evil,
Goddess is evil, ONE TRUE WAY, ...

This is the challenge of Christianity. It is very hard to follow Jesus
because the Christian Devil has so many tricks. And so most Christians
end up following the Devil when they think they are really following
Jesus. They do the Devil's work in the name of Jesus. The last 1000
years of history shows this to be fact. You have to feel sorry for
Christians, their's is one difficult religion to do right with.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Summary: Learn FROM dogma, but please do not be dogmatic
Keywords: Was Jesus a HATE monger? Well, what did He say in His own words?
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug18.111632.12735@phillip.edu.au> <Bt7752.Duy@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:56:23 GMT

Dogma Test: Luke 14:26

In article <1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au> 
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
<  I assume you are saying that I must hate my father, mother , wife and
<children, brothers and sisters etc??? Look again Paul, this is another classic
<misquote of scripture seen before on this newsgroup. Jesus is saying that we
<must love Him more than anything/anybody else see Matt 10:37-39 which is a
<parallel verse .. and do us all a favour, don't misquote v35 as in the context
<of the paragraph, it makes sense and is *NOT* contradictory!!


I did not misquote the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26, YOU DID! Perhaps you
should read them again. I do not see the words "love Him more" in my version
of the Bible. Which Bible are you quoting?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:54:43 GMT

Bob Beauchaine writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>
>>  well taking the bible out of the context of even its plot development would
>>lead to contradictions.  but most rational christians can show the context of
>>contradictions that appear to be so.  also, nit-picking here, contradictiosn
>>would have to do more than *appear* to exist for you to deny the consistent
>>nature of god.

>  Well, context or not, how many legs does a grasshopper have?  The
>  ones in my back yard have six, the Bible says four (in Leviticus
>  under the food laws).  I await your context sensitive explanation
>  of how this only appears to be a contradiction.

before i debate this and how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin [ :) ], i'd like to do a reality check to see if the inability
to reconcile this contradiction will keep you from believing in jesus.

>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

>Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

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

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

>  --Robert Heinlein

  and just heinlein's name is not enough to get me to believe that he
knows more about death than me.  :)


---                          
     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: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:50:54 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

>So, is Hinduism with it's one transcendent and three aspects called Brahma,
>Vishnu, Shiva, polytheism or monotheism? Is there really a difference
>between monotheism and polytheism or have these words only served to try
>to make one religion better or more valid that all others?

  no hinduism is polytheistic because there are over 330 million gods
being worshipped under the hindu theology.
---                          
     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: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL (Was Re: Jesus denied he was God
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:06:11 GMT

For the Christians out there (especially Publius), I would like to see
responses to Tim's post regarding his interpretation.  The definitions he
gives for morphe and haragmos are exactly correct.  Check out Strong's
Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.  Morphe is #3444 (form) and harpagmos
is #725 (robbery).  The best rendering of verse 6 is in the KJV:

  "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

Don't waste time and space argueing about proper translations of the two words.
I think we should spend our time discussing what the correct translation,
given above, means.

From Matthew Henry's commentary, I quote

  "...did not think himself guilty of any invasions of what did not belong
   to him, or assuming another's rights....It is the highest degree of robbery
   for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or
   profess himself one with the Father.  This is for a man to rob God, not
   in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."

I think Mr. Henry is saying that it was not robbery for Jesus to claim to be
God.  Rather, it was his right.  Yet, despite his rights, Jesus emptied himself
and became man.  This is consistent with verses 3,4: "Do nothing from self-
ishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard
one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your
own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (NASB)  The
model for this selfless attitude is Jesus (verse 5), which is where the
disputed passage comes in.  Jesus could have looked to himself as God and
thought himself (correctly) better than us; it would not have been robbery
to do so.  But, he emptied himself of all his glory and took the form of a
servant.

I'm not necessarily advocating this view (I only found the commentary about
1/2 hour ago), though it sounds consistent with the preceding verses.

  -- 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