HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: All hail, Steve Adams, prophet of t.r.m! Has direct cel phone!
	<adams.714663184@spssig> <fRJlrrM@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<adams.714837075@spssig>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:29:38 GMT

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.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
Where does it say that?

In article <adams.714837075@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
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.

---
I still don't see where it says that God promised Eve that her 'seed' would
bring on a savior to redeem mankind. Are you forming a new religion here?
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:39:01 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Charles Hedrick) writes:

            Outside the Unitarians you are probably not going to find
 many churches whose membership is uniformly liberal.

Well, I wouldn't say Unitarians are uniformly liberal, although
by mainline christian standards it might seem that way at first.
Some Unitarians could easily be mistaken for Episcopalians, others
are pagans, still others atheists.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug28.025903.10361@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>In article <27AUG199209502923@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.000725.3682@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>>   My disagreement with this is the second principle:  that anyone
>>can do anything they like with whatever they have created.  In my
>>opinion, sentience carries with it emergent moral rights, no matter
>					     ~~~~~~
>There's that undefined word again.  We will probably disagree because
>of our interpretation of moral rights.  If Entity A creates Entity B
>out of nothing, I see no moral obligation on Entity A to preserve Entity
>B.

I don't see any "moral obligation ... to preserve" either--at least, if
"preserve" means the taking of positive actions.  I do see a moral
obligation not to destroy.

>>how that sentience was formed, or from whose property.  (If person
>>A creates a sentient being from the property of person B, without
>>person B's permission, person B has lost that property.  Person A
> 
>What made you assume that person A could do anything without person
>B's permission?

I made no such assumption--it's a conditional statement.  If person B
gives explicit permission, then the case for person B's losing the
property is, if anything, much stronger.

>>may be obligated to compensate person B, but person B does not still
>>own the property (now a sentient being).)
> 
>I don't follow your logic, sorry...I do not mean to be derogatory, but
>I really don't follow you.

The basis of my argument is that sentient beings cannot (morally) be
owned, and that the method by which they come into existence makes
no difference.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that sentient
beings can be owned, and that their owners may do whatever they like
with them.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:20:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.714855255@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >In article <lharris.2@upei.ca>, lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) wrote:
> >>      Here you are right - mostly.  Evil was not an unavoidable aspect of 
> >> creation. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, as 
> >> long as that universe does not include free will.  I agree with Steve;\'s 
> >> comment that God cannot create another God, but He can create beings perfect 
> >> in what they are.
> 
> >In other words the omnipotent God is *not* capable of creating a universe
> >with no sinning and free will. When will Christians stop creating
> >logical traps for themselves?
> 
> Hmm.  You have an interesting definition of a logical trap.  If God creates
> a universe of people with 'free will' who do not sin, there still has to be
> the logical possibility of evil.  If there is no possible way to do evil,
> then there is no free will.

I see, the classical 'everything is black and white'. Well, I could 
state that instead of talking about evil and good, we could talk about 
zero state and entropy. Same situation, but suddenly we don't need
to deal with 'black and white' based logical contradictions. 

> It is entirely possible for God to create a being that would always make
> the right choice.  But I don't see this as free will, for if the being
> always makes the right choice, there is no possibility that they will do
> evil, thus no real possibility, thus no free will.

Here you assume that free will requires sinning. This also implies
that people will not have a free will in heaven -> robots. Also it
implies that free will is tied to sinning, and if God also has
free will he has to sin in order to make the right choice. Sigh.
More logical illusions.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:00:36 GMT

corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>Could you name these three non-evolutionist biologists?

	Me, Menem, Norrblad

>Are you sure that none of the evolutionists are biologists here?

	I currently found one. 

>Why don't you take this to talk.origins?  Chris Colby is an evolutionary
>biologist, I know that for sure.

	I'm not impressed of his abilities. Two.

>Antti, this makes no sense at all.  Could you please be clearer?

	It's a palindrome. 

>What qualifies you as a biologist?  I think I know more biology than
>you do from the quality of your postings!

	I wouldn't say it to you normally, but when I was a bit rude to you, I
	can say it: It's a question of realizing. I KNOW a lotta facts, but 
	evolutionists know, too. You should have a holistic view. I have 
	identified skins in museum and I know it's a hard job, because 
	a plant, an animal belongs to its environment. I'm a biologist, because
	when I see a field, I can expect to find certain forms of life there, 
	it's experience. And when you get experience, you know on your own the
	principles how does things work there in the nature. 

	Yes, I have read those books, but they don't give so much ideas. I 
	could read dozen books of some foreign language and still nobody of
	that language could understand me. 

	In this case I could use complicated therminology, but I've found it 
	needless as you can see. Besides I needn't brag with my vocabulary.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<BtwuFt.6CH@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <10290@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> 
	<graham.715487220@galois>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:49:54 GMT

Graham:
Nope I am saying that what you call "blind faith" I call "faith",
and what you call "faith" I call "educated guess".

(Paul Harvey) writes:
OK, now I get it. There is a scaling factor between the way I use English
and the way you use English. Fair enough since we are on opposite sides of
the equator far from the native homeland of English if there is such a 
thing. OK, so if you don't mind, let's try to work out a key:

I say:			You say:
truth			truth

(Robert Beauchaine) writes:
W/o answering for Graham, I'd say you're dead wrong out of the
gate with this one.  You will not, under any circumstances, see
Graham use the word truth in any post with the intent to imply
that he believes that there is such a creature.

Graham:
Well Bob I was going to let this one slide, but since you mention it
yes you are right. I am not sure I believe that there is such a thing
as "truth". I suspect this is why I think the "blind" in "blind
faith" is nonsense.

me write:
Well, now you are being silly, right? If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, would you
agree that is true or would you require proof? And if I say 1 + 1 = 0, would
you agree that is false? Or does the notion of truth and falsehood completely
escape you? These are, by the way, human constructs that allows us to SEE
the world, to model that which we call reality. It is also the basis of
science, reductionism and the Western way. You did say you understand the
concept of "educated guess". How do you do that without knowledge of basic
logic, ie true/false? On what basis do you make an educated guess if not on
the logic of true/false? And, just curious, I take it you would consider
absolute truth and truth to be the same thing? Hint: absolute means 
irrespective of any frame of reference. For example, 1+1=2 in decimal, but
1+1=0 in binary(mod2). These are truths, not absolute truths. An example of
an absolute truth would be the speed of light in a vacumn.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:32:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.133809.15163@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Could you then justify why I don't see millions of deamons jumping 
> >around my keyboard, directing my fingers to write common sense
> >arguments? If someone says I'm blind because I follow the words
> >of Thomas Paine, then I'm frankly speaking honoured.
> 
> >If dark forces urges me to think logically about things in the world,
> >then I don't mind that dark forces are using my small brain -- quite
> >the contrary.
> 
> 	No, I think you just believe everything the big brother wants you to. 
> 	You think your logic is revolutionary, but you don't know how many 
> 	people think the same way you do. Your highest moments in your life are,
> 	when someone notices your smartness. 

Unfortunately I have to inform you that I'm in no way interested
to smart other people by brilliant Bible citing, or believing in
the one and only faith. IMHO everyone is feel to think whatever
they want about this world, as long as their faith is not causing
harm with innocent bystanders. This is the reason I have fascism,
but I don't have anything against weird religions (such as yours).

As for Big Brother, this is also insane, to cite the Prisoner,
"I'm a free man, I'm not a number". Most agnostics and atheists don't like
the
concept of a higher authority controlling their thoughts. This 
was the motto of the founding fathers of US as well, a group
of people I highly admire. Or as Jefferson stated:

"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." 

To end this sillyness, if you think that some people enjoy
being smart, it's your own business (or hallucination). Don't
just assume too much about the person at the other end of the
terminal. That's also smartness, sort of negative and dumb
smartness.

Cheers,
Kent
--
"Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security
 lose both and deserve neither." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:28:15 GMT

In article <29AUG199219242260@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.025903.10361@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>>In article <27AUG199209502923@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.000725.3682@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>>>   My disagreement with this is the second principle:  that anyone
>>>can do anything they like with whatever they have created.  In my
>>>opinion, sentience carries with it emergent moral rights, no matter
>>					     ~~~~~~
>>There's that undefined word again.  We will probably disagree because
>>of our interpretation of moral rights.  If Entity A creates Entity B
>>out of nothing, I see no moral obligation on Entity A to preserve Entity
>>B.
>
>I don't see any "moral obligation ... to preserve" either--at least, if
>"preserve" means the taking of positive actions.  I do see a moral
>obligation not to destroy.

No, I meant preserve as "not to destroy", not necessarily a positive action.

>
>The basis of my argument is that sentient beings cannot (morally) be
>owned, and that the method by which they come into existence makes
>no difference.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that sentient
>beings can be owned, and that their owners may do whatever they like
>with them.
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

Yes, we do disagree.  The true creator of a sentient being
(especially one who can create and recreate the same being
repeatedly at will, which creating out of nothing certainly
implies) has the moral right to destory completely its creation.
I am firmly convinced of this...
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:07:22 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <adams.714847671@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}
>}>In article <adams.714835799@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>}>}Wrong.  Why couldn't the author have used aproximate measurements?
>}
>}>OK.  Why couldn't the authors of the rest of the bible be approximately
>}>right?
>}
>}There is a big difference in relating the size/diameter/circumfrence of an
>}object and reporting information about God and our relationship with him.

>Right.  One is difficult to tell if it is right and the other is trivial.
>And the information for something physically accessible is easy to acquire
>while the other is....something else.  Want to guess which is which?

Well, clearly, I can, given the tools that I have, and to some degree of
accuracy, measure the diameter and circumfrence of a bowl.  But no matter
how accurately I measure, I will fall short.  Everything depends on what
degree of accuracy you require, and the tools used.  If I used a yardstick
to measure a round item, I wouldn't be very accurate.

As for the other, I agree that the information about God is not, per se,
easily accessible.  I have to depend on the authors to have accurately
represented the revelation they received.

 -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: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of misattribution
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:56:04 GMT
Organization: My Mistake, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <adams.714838903@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

 To have written what you attributed to me, I would have had to have been
 out of my mind.  I consistantly insist that Isaiah 45:7 clearly says that 
 God created evil.  And given the scriptural evidence, I say that we are to 
 blame for actualizing it.
 
And I was clearly wrong. I mistook Steve Gross for Steve Adams
and I apologize to you both. It was Steve Gross (I hope I'm not
mistaken again!) who was insisting that if god created evil, the
bible was wrong as far as he was concerned.

Again, apologies for misattribution.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:07:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.132553.22606@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>Huh?  In what way is Christianity or Islam or Judasim "destroying the
>>>planet"?  I would agree that any religion whose worship service
>>>involves, say, dumping a few barrels of oil into the ocean isn't
>>>really on the level, but fortunately I've never heard of such a thing. :)
>
>[Mr. Graham]
>>Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>>of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>>planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>>could manage it in a humane manner.
>
>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.

>>How do you suppose that opposition
>>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>
>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>control population as well as anything mentioned above.

Yes, and if we all stopped eating, there wouldn't be a food problem.

>(Disclaimer:
>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>understand differing points of view.)

Well, forgive me for being so blind.  It doesn't really matter that
the population is growing out of control as long as those who are
responsible for it keep chanting "abstinence", is that right?  The
chanting of mantras is a perfectly valid solution to the population
problem.

Gregg, you know and I know that there are infinitely better solutions
to the population problem, right?  So don't you think I'm justified
in saying that those who seek to prevent the implementation of those
vastly superior solutions seem to want to destroy life on the planet?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:13:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.100021.89898@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.015950.11293@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>
>> Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>> of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>> planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>> could manage it in a humane manner.  How do you suppose that opposition
>> to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?  Why
>> was overpopulation not even on the table at the Rio conference?
>
>I have a question here?  What is your evidence that the current population
>level is unsustainable?  Yes, I know that there are famines in Africa
>and in other parts of the world, but I also have reason to believe that
>there are large stockpiles of food in countries like the US and Australia
>because it can't be sold at a profit and food production in Africa has
>suffered from continuing unrest and war.  I also am aware that my family
>throws away a lot of food each week and I have no reason to believe that
>we are not representative of a large section of Western society.

I'm very happy for you that your family throws away a lot of food each
week.  Is that how you think you'll know when there are too many people
inhabiting the planet?  "Hey Martha, I can't find any food to throw away.
Maybe it's time to start worrying about overpopulation."  You might
want to think about employing a little more foresight than that, as
it will probably be too late at that point.

Our current environmental crisis is due largely because there are too damn
many people.  Energy shortages will probably become critical soon.  Hell,
we just had a war over oil.  Acid rain.  Global warming.  Ozone holes.
Polluted air and water.  Mass extinctions of other species.  Devastated
rain forests.  etc. etc. etc.  All caused by the cancer which is our
species.

>What do you consider to be a sustainable population?
>On what do you base this?

These are good questions, and ones that I cannot answer.  I'd guess maybe
a few hundred million, but I pretty much pulled that number out of thin
air.  It should be possible to figure out how much energy we receive from
the sun each day, what percentage of that we are able to retrieve, and how
much each person requires, do a little calculation and use that as a starting
point.  I imagine that there would be a good deal of leeway, depending on
what quality of life we choose.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism