HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:28:09 GMT

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

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>NRSV says 'sound', also, and it tends to be a good literal translation.
>>So, the quesiton is, who speaks Hebrew and can tell us? ;-)

>It is not a question of speaking Hebrew, it is a question of knowing
>how the top Biblical Hebrew Scholars translate this passage into
>English. And the answer is JPS:Tanakh ISBN:0-8276-0252-9:
>Genesis 3
Thanx! ;-) Of course, the NIV & NRSV had leading Hebrew Scholars, too.

>>No, but if you look at the scale :
>>|----------+----------|
>>^                     ^
>>|                     |
>>+-Absolute Hate       +-Absolute Love
>>Then your emotion towards Jesus is to be so close to Absolute that any
>>other 'love' on the continuum seems like hate...

>Hmm, is this another example of word inflation? So, your love of Jesus
>is so great that you HATE everyone else including yourself? 
NO! NO! NO!  By ***COMPARISON*** your love for everyone else ***SEEMS***
like hate.  Jeesh.

>What kind of god would demand this kind of absolute attention? 
An absolute God.

>Again, this idea of Absolute Love of
>Jesus and HATE of everything else does explain most of Christian
>European history, but it hardly seems like a good way to continue unless
>the goal is self destruction of the species and trashing the Earth while
>we are at it. Does it? What has become of the message of brothery love?
NO!  Like I said, it is ONLY IN COMPARRISON.

>>>I doubt that I'd ever change my opinion, unless some pretty impressive
>>>evidence was found.  But I do respect your opinions.  It's just that
>>>sometimes you voice your opinions like they are accepted *fact*.

>>Hey, for me they are..:-)  After all, I read the manual! ;-)

>Yeah, but did you get a good translation?

Well, since I usually check NIV, NRSV and NASB, I think I get a good idea.

 -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,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
	<1992Aug21.134706@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:56:05 GMT

     Have you ever mixed chemicals up in a flask and gotten one molecule of
protein, let alone DNA?  If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around?  What forms of life
have no DNA in them?  Can you shake a flask of proteins and get DNA?
     Evolutionism is no more a science than magic.

Vince Summers
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Keywords: special pleading
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:25:00 GMT

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

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
>are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
>non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
>but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.

>Scott Gibson writes:
>In other words, Eric is right:  You are engaging in special pleading?

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>well no.  let me explain it in other words.  i grant the reality of 
>spiritual experiences with or without jesus.  they are all real.  thus
>i am not doing special pleading.  what i am saying is that i believe
>from my experience, study, reflection and prayer that non-jesus experiences
>are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god.

>---
>So, I guess after 10 years out in the wilderness you never did pick up
>the meaning of special pleading. I still would like to know exactly what
>you were doing those 10 years of intensive religious study when you
>claim to have studied every religion and returned to, as you say, the
>crutch of Christianity. As far as I can tell so far, you've returned to
>Christianity because you felt threatened by some all knowing monster who
>will destroy you unless you worship him and because you have confused
>special pleading with absolute truth and you find the crutch offered by
>Christianity to be more comfortable. So what else is so exciting about
>this particular brand of Christianity you claim to have found? Did you
>get any free gift offers? Did you fall for that old devil's gimick that
>you are evil and the son of god committed suicide because of how evil
>you are and the only way for you to even get a slight chance of being
>forgiven for all these crimes is to sign up for the free gift? Yeah,
>I've heard that grift too, it's a crack up isn't it? You didn't sign
>your soul away though, did you?

  i suppose you'll have to let me know if you want an answer to any
of this.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:45:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.040301.29841@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>   In the matter of a couple who has a surgical sterilization procedure done,
>>any sexual activity afterward is considered sinful (unless they truly repent
>>of the surgery, and conduct themselves thereafter as if the surgery had not
>>taken place).  If done _before_ the marriage, such a procedure can be
>
>	That is, to try to produce kids even if one knows one can't.
>
>	Talk about emotional cruelty.
>
>	Why not accept the decoupling of sex and reproduction?

   Loren, these are the same incorrect assumptions that I have already
corrected in previous posts, but I'll go over it one more time.  The
Catholic Church does not teach that in every sexual act a couple must
"try to produce kids."  The Church teaches that "_in any use whatever
of marriage_ there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to
create life" [Pius XI, _Casti Connubii_].

   This means not as you say, that an active attempt to conceive must
be made, but that an active attempt to _prevent_ conception must _not_
be made.  This is because it is God who creates life; man only cooperates
in the creation of life, or else resists.  By definition, it is a sin to
resist God in anything.

>>considered an invalidating impediment.  Exceptions would be made for a
>>procedure that was done not for the intention of sterilization, but for some
>>other medically valid reason.  So you can see that what is in people's hearts
>>is very important in such matters.
>
>	So sterilization is OK if it is a side effect of something
>else.

   Yes.  Consider it analogous to having a leg amputated.  Nobody in
his right mind is going to want to have his leg amputated when there's
nothing wrong with it.  It is only done to save one's life.  The same
should go as far as sterilization is concerned as well.  The technical
term the Church uses for such a procedure (unnecessary) is "mutilation."
This means that part of one's body is intentionally damaged, so that it
no longer functions as intended.

>	So that means that if one is sterilized as a side effect of
>something else, one must still act as if one was trying to produce
>kids

   Same incorrect assumption as above.  What is meant is that the couple
should not start thinking in terms of, "Hey, we can have all the sex we
want now, and don't have to worry about having any children."  What
matters here is what is in people's hearts (their motives).  The attitude
should instead be "If God should so bless us..."  For what it's worth to
you, the Bible has many accounts of couples thought to be sterile, who
later were able to conceive (John the Baptist's parents, for one).

[ The remaining totally invalid and gratuitous attacks on the Catholic
  Church deleted. ]

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sola Scriptura (was Re: Perfect Prophets?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:43:31 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

> I see NO biblical evidence that god disapproves of abortion.

And you have the advantage of both the Hebrew and the Christian
testaments.
When I quizzed the local rabbis on what evidence they found in the
Torah to support their opposition to  abortion (that is, what Divinely
inspired evidence, as opposed to the sort of Torah commentary that is
open to rational refutation), they offered this:
	"Who sheds the blood of man, his blood shall be shed"
(which usually is translated as "who lives by the sword...").
Seems to rule out all surgery, in my humble; or simply to warn
surgeons that they will not themselves die of overmedication.
-- 
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
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:27:53 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug20.050941.26630@u.washington.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes...
>sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (Scott Chase) writes:
>>They don't understand...that physics deals with the facts of the mechanical
>>world and that religion deals with morals and values and that the two are
>>completely disjoint bodies of knowledge.  
>>
>This sounds a bit extreme to me.  It's quite difficult to maintain
>the position that science is completely disjoint from morals and values.
>The fact/value distinction isn't as clear-cut as we like to think.

I don't deny that scientists have morals and values and that it might 
influence how and why they do what they do.  But the *facts* of physics
are value-neutral.  What does the fact that the speed of light is the 
same in all inertial frames of reference tell you about how we should
behave towards one another?  What does quantum mechanics have to say 
about right and wrong in human society?  Nothing.  Anyone who tries to
deduce how we should behave from the rules of physics is way confused
about the meaning of the laws of physics.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:04:57 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
>to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
>the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
>ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
>
>1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
>then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
>being forgiven and not the others?

This is, of course, one of the church's most powerful weapons -
essentially, whoever's holding the megaphone gets to decide.
Not that I'm cynical.

>If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
>atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
>in God?

A good idea, but the standard response is that you must _accept_
redemption ("by allowing TLJC into your Heart" is how it's usually
phrased in my neck of the woods) before you will be saved.

swehtam bob
From: parrish@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (paRtiCLe maN)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Divination of Mary -- Could be a FAQ?
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:47:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


I'm currently examining the divination/glorification of the Virgin Mary,
pertaining specifically to the modern day Catholic Church.  I am
non-Catholic myself, though I have been to Medjugorje-- and have seen
some of the more common "sitings", ie. the spinning/dancing sun, among
others.  If anyone knows of any good sources both Non-Catholic and
Catholic I would be very interested them.  Too, information pertaining 
to some of the earlier sitings as well-- Fatima, Guadalupe (sp?), 
Lourdes, etc. would be much appreciated.  

My study is incomplete at this time, though I have read many of the
"messages" given at Medjugorje and more recently those being given in
Scottsdale AZ.

One last request if I may... The Rosary and it's place in history and
the present would be very beneficial to my studies-- I see the two
closely intertwined.

If you could, posting is fine, however e-mail is preferable as I will
not have access in 5 days for about two weeks.  

thanks
 





--
Stephen Parrish
Purdue University    
School of Nuclear Engineering 
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu _or_ ysp@inel.gov  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:07:48 GMT

In article <d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>you!

Here we go with the FREE GIFT GRIFT again! Yes, I know, it's the free
gift whose only condition is that you MUST accept it. Look, this gimick
may have worked back in NT days, but in this modern era of direct
marketing, most people have already learned about the great FREE GIFT
GRIFT. You insult yourself and your cause by trying to use it to sell
Christianity. Please, Christianity may be a questionable religion, but
it hardly merits the insult of being peddled with the free gift gimick.
I know you have a brain, just use it a little first before you take
advantage of people who maybe aren't street smart and haven't been
burned yet by the free gift grift. If you're gonna try and sell
Christianity, sell it on it's merits. I'm sure it must have some. It
can't be as bad as free boats and pianos and all the other mail order
junk, is it? YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON!
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:16:49 EST

In article <dil.714085023@vulcan.sce.carleton.ca>, dil@sce.carleton.ca (Dave Laurenson) writes:
> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
> 
>>In article <sbuckley.714034287@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
> 
>>> god judges us based on what we know.  
> 
>>not by what we do? sounds pretty unjust to me, since circumstances
>>of birth and education often dictate what we know. 
> 
> The way I see it judgement has to depend on what we do, but that is
> inextricably linked with what we know.  If I know that it is wrong to
> steal but do it anyway I deserve punishment.  If I have no concept
> that theft is wrong and shoplift do I deserve the same punishment?  If
> so, then the courts should never be allowed to reduce sentence due to
> the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime...  Thus
> there is no such thing as diminished responsibility regardless of age
> or understanding.
> 
> Dave.


all very true, but in your example the judgment still takes place
according to what we DO, and is softened or hardened according
to mitigating knowledge. 

but to do as s.buckley and assume a judgement based on knowledge, 
without a word on actions, puts a totally different emphasis
on the matter.

is he trying to say actions don't count, only correct belief?

  ando.
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: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:51:09 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>Gordon Storga writes:
>Note: these questions were a sample of the questions I had asked at bible
>study as a youth.  I no longer ask these questions, having determined that
>I was merely questioning a fable.

[[a whole bunch of gordon's questions, my responses and gordon's responses
        deleted.]]

>>  in asking the above questions we're going to have to accept [at least
>>for the sake of argument] the premise that God(tm) exists as he is known
>>in the bible.  i've answered the above questions based on that assumption.

>I understand that.  But the god you believe in is so contradictory and
>profane, and illogical I can't possibly believe that such a being would
>exist.

  i'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, but i'm not going to continue
answering your questions when you so consistently do not accept my premise.

  you think the bible and god are a fable and you do not respect those
sources as worthwhile, yet you ask me all these questions, and i answer
them and i state my premise of where there based.  i also say that for
the sake of discussion you're going to have to hypothetically accept
this assumption/premise for a discussion to be meaningful.  but your
responses to my answers consistently indicate that you do not accept
my sources for my answers.  very simply, you don't accept my premise
even for the sake of conversation, so it would be a waste of my energy
to answer them all again from the same sources for you to poke the same
holes in once again.  i'd be happy to continue debating these issues
in email, but i won't waste anymore bandwidth when you're just not
interested in accepting my premise.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:07:12 GMT

     In article <1992Aug14.041002.20875@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

=There is still as much debate about God as trinity as existed then,
=but let's set that aside for now.*
...
=*the Lord your god is one: this is still being debated. There
=are hints to him being split in nature in the ot. but never
=as having a body of flesh, so that idea came from nowhere, not
=even a hint.

     Barry's right.  The idea of God sending a messiah was old, but the
idea of God BEING the Messiah was new.  The idea that God would take upon
Himself a body of flesh was indeed an idea that "came from nowhere."

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 07:35:17 GMT

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

>I am assuming that there are
>spiritual absolutes.  If you do not believe this then you should not
>be reading or posting to this group because after all everything is
>relative so you can seek God however you want... Bye.

Jesus H. Christ.  I've seen incredible arrogance before but this
takes the cake.  What the hell are they feeding you guys?  Yo John.
See the Newsgroup line up there in the header?  See the word "misc"
in the newsgroup name?  Does that tell you anything?

>Notice I am not trying to moderate -- only to
>get somewhere.  My time is incredibly precious and I will not
>squander it!

It's obvious to me that you already know all the answers.  Why bother
squandering any of your precious time here?  The rest of us just might
manage to struggle along without you.

>For starters, post your stance on spiritual absolutes:

Why not try reading what other people are saying and figure it out
for yourself?  It must get rather boring treating the net as a
write-only medium.

>P.S.  I do have my own views as many of you already know but I will
>be objective as I hope everyone will be.  I am sure I will learn from
>all of you if we can cooperate?

Oh yes.  And we all understand perfectly well what you mean by "cooperate."

>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!

IMO, you just pinned the evil meter.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL (Was Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220611.25781@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>For the Christians out there (especially Publius), I would like to see
>responses to Tim's post regarding his interpretation.

Thank you for your concern, Scott.

> ...  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."

I am not surprised by what you find in Strong's, for Strong's is really
based on KJV ...


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:24:08 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <NUGE.92Aug17101830@newport.med.ge.com> nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes:
>  1. You may take advantage of the natural process of cyclic fertility
>     (and the knowledge of which sex acts would be fertile and which
>     would be infertile) but you may _not_ do something to rob an
>     otherwise fertile sex act of its fertility.

If you are allowed to take advantage of the knowledge that some sex acts aren't
fertile, this means that sex acts which are known in advance not to be fertile
are allowed.  This in turn seems to get rid of most Church objection to
masturbation and homosexuality.  So are you _sure_ about this?
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)