HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:00:21 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

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

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
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-290892183022@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:51:39 GMT

In article <ksand-290892183022@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Sigh, Shirley MacLaine does not equal all the New Age or ancient world
>religions. True, many of the Eastern Culture religions push for
>self-realization
>and to become a God, but that's nothing new under the sun. Mormons and 
>Scientologists have the same goal. Sometimes I even wonder if not 
>Christians are keen to be the 'chosen people' that will end up in heaven.
>It also implies self-realization, whether you want it or not.

Maybe I can shed some light on this. I am certain that the belief that
one can BECOME God would be sufficient to prevent one from becoming
enlightened or becoming ONE with God. You see the difference there,
right? Any good Christian should recognize the thought of BECOMING God
as the work of the Christian Devil. As for non-Christians, the idea of
BECOMING God should appear as presumptuous. Becoming one with God or
joining the Lord's Kingdom is not the same as becoming God. Now that
said, realize that I am not the one, the one can only be you for
yourself. The best have all been humbled and I am not as enlightened as
the best. The idea of becoming God is not very humble.
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Date: 24 Aug 92 17:33:28 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <BtAn60.BqC@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 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?

                    NEW KING JAMES VERSION!!!

The gospels are synoptic and have parallel verses, Matt 10 is the parallel of
Luke 14 .. keep trying Paul!






-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:57:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714968735@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   you seem to have completely misunderstood what i was saying.  the contacts
> i've had spiritually in the past are not of god and i'm saying i don't
> want conscious contact with spirits, so if i do get spirits invading my
> life, i'll assume they're not from god.  i understand the gnostic
> perspective of this danger and i find it [and most gnostic wisdom]
> absurd.  i value my personal experience with god to be more authentic
> than gnostic garbage.

Well, we both agree that Satan is the ultimate deceiver. He could show
up as a friendly spirit, or even as Jesus. And would lead people to
disaster. This is the issue I wanted to point out, if you believe
in Satan and spirits that twist people's minds, you have to also
accept the fact that he has done it to you as well.

> >As for pure evidence of Godlike qualities, this happened *frequently*
> >during the Biblical times, people actually assumed that prophets 
> >and God's sons should do miracles, and that God should speak from
> >a burning bush or a cloud now and then. This is missing from our
> >current world. Christianity desperately needs similar miracles,
> >otherwise the religion is doomed to disappear due to the more
> >secular view modern people have.

>   no christianity *needs* no such miracles.  me and millions of people
> convert to christianity without them.  

Not in the beginning. Anyway, people convert to false religions as well
without the need of any evidence. Christianity is not different in this
sense.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:50:07 GMT

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.

It is amazing what people attach the word "clearly" to.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 25 Aug 92 00:58:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714459606@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   the bible says that when jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after his
> being risen, he said he'd leave the holy spirit with us to dwell in the
> hearts of the believers to guide and direct us in our walk of life.  he
> need not speak directly to people in laundramats or anything.  in fact, 
> i've kinda made a deal with god that he will in no way speak to me in
> such a literal fashion: after all the nasty experiences i've had on the
> spiritual realm, i have grown to distrust conscious experience with spirits
> and i've made it quite clear to god that any spiritual intervention 
> in my life i will consider not to be from him.  it was possible to make
> this arrangement with god because i felt his presence in me and i could
> be certain that i didn't need any burning bushes, channelers or psychics
> to know him, so i'd assume that if anything supernatural contacts me i'm
> free to expell it.  so i, for one, am eagerly opposed to spiritual
> encounters from angels/whathaveyou. 

You are busing nailing together a logical coffin where you suddenly
find yourself inside. You made a pact with an outside force not to
listen to spiritual advice, and assumed that the first contact was
done by the 'good' guys. Read any book about Gnosticism to understand
the danger you are living in just now.

As for pure evidence of Godlike qualities, this happened *frequently*
during the Biblical times, people actually assumed that prophets 
and God's sons should do miracles, and that God should speak from
a burning bush or a cloud now and then. This is missing from our
current world. Christianity desperately needs similar miracles,
otherwise the religion is doomed to disappear due to the more
secular view modern people have.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Think of that
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

In article <1992Aug31.155444.18537@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi  
(Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 
> 	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

	Perhaps this is because humans have a tough time intuiting the  
difference between simple things and complicated things.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is the last straw...this man has got to go!"  -- A Christian
radio show's statement about Massachusetts Gov. Weld, upon reporting
that he is funding an organization intended to prevent suicide
among teen homosexuals.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheists
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: [1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi], just the warmup for Luke 14:26
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:14:58 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>much. So, perhaps you'd like to nitpick your way out of Luke 14:26? Is that
>iron hot enough for you? Please explain the "damning discrepancies" of Luke
>14:26. Where is the accuracy of your Bible now? Which translation are you
>picking as the exact word? If you ask me, the explanation is fairly obvious.
>KJV is an old English translation of letters written in Alexandrian Greek by
>people who claim to have heard Jesus or Yeshua speak in Aramaic. If some
>inaccuracy can creep in regarding Pi, don't you think some mistranslations
>could have occured along this rather complicated path to KJV? If not, how do
>you explain Luke 14:26? Do you really think your loving Jesus said this in
>Aramaic almost two thousand years ago? Or are you saying that Jesus may not
>have been so precise in His choice of words? What is the measure of error in
>HATE? How much HATE is OK? Is preaching LOVE and HATE at the same time preaching
>a mixed message? Which comes first, LOVE or HATE? Are you going to HATE or
>LOVE? How can you follow Jesus if He taught both LOVE and HATE?

	I have explained pi 113 times, so it's needless to say any more about  
	it. But the original meaning of word "hate" here is to love less. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:34:26 GMT

In article <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Jonathan W Newton) emphatically defines christianity:
> 
> This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to have
> faith that christ is the savior and son of god.  This means that you
> do not question (think critically) about the subject of god in any way.
> Furthermore, anything that the bible says is true is not to be
> questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith and accept it as fact.
> To put it simply,faith in something means you believe in something
> without proof or reason.  
>
>And this is Mr. Newton's fantasy about how christians
>define faith. I am unaware of ANY christian theologian
>who would agree with his view. 
> 
>Dano

Perhaps theologians do not define faith this way, but most distributors
of christian belief, including ALL of the religious teachers
I had, define faith in exactly this way.  There are certain
beliefs you had to accept as true, e.g. Jesus as Son of God
and Savior.  If an explanation was requested, some reference
to the bible or authorized expert was offered.  If the point
of faith was furthered pursued with a demand for a reasoned response
or a more rigorous proof, the argument would eventually be
abandoned by the religious teacher with the statement
"You just have to accept it as a matter of faith". 
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15067 sci.physics:13711 sci.chem:3270
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:35:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug24125207@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>
>     What did the viruses attack?
Come on! Have you never heard of degenerate forms?

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quran Translation
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:11:17 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Earlier this year I asked a co-worker for a good translation and was 
informed "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" was an excellent English
translation. This version is an explanatory tranlation by Mohammed 
Pickthall and can be ordered through your local bookstore. The ISBN
is 0-451-62745-8 and sells for about $6.   

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15261 talk.religion.newage:4148
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: mica phone check, mica mica phone checka
	<1992Aug26.002705.25158@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
	<l9nblkINNo4i@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<1992Aug26.193642.10181@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.193642.10181@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
<---- God did not create evil in my opinion.  Nor, in my
<opinion did God create a world originally that would support evil.  It is
<my belief that God created everything good, and pure.  He did, however,
<create Lucipher with the intelligence and the emotions necessary to
<manifest evil.  When he (lucipher) was cast out of heaven, it was because
<sin was found in his heart.  That sin was formed inside of him due to
<jealousy, an emotion.  When he was cast out, he tricked Adam and Eve into
<giving control of this world to him.  Due to his control of this world,
<the thoughts and actions of Satan are present.  Satan is therefore the
<origin of evil.  A plausible reasoning don't you think?  In any case, I
<have proven that God doesn't HAVE to be responsible for anything.  If he
<is or not, I cannot tell.  When I get to heaven, perhaps we will continue
<this conversation with more knowlege.

So, how does it feel being polytheistic? Your God didn't have the guts to
create evil, so He got some flunky to do it instead so He wouldn't have to
take the rap? I assure you that the Creator of Judaism, He who is known as 
"I am that I am", is the creator of ALL. He created the good and the bad. 
Yes, even Barry Manilow, Neil Diamond and evangelicals. It is left as an 
exercise for the student to determine why. It should be rather obvious that 
good can not exist without bad, and visa versa. It is meerly another pair of 
opposites, a signpost for us to judge that which we call reality. As for 
Lucifer, his crime was not jealousy. God at first said, "Bow only to Me". Then 
God created man and said "Bow also to man". Lucifer thought he caught "He who 
can do no wrong" in a contradiction and besides, he argued that his love of 
God was so great that he could bow to no one else, (sound familiar?, he hated
all else in comparison to his love of God), that to bow to anyone but God would
be disrespectful, a sign that his love of God was not absolute. For this crime 
of failure to follow the commandments of God, and for being rather dogmatic 
about God's word, Lucifer was sentenced to where he would never see the face of
his one true love ever again. Again, the meaning of this episode is left as
an exercise for the student.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:48:54 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<l9l2o7INNl82@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell):
>(Steve Adams) writes:
>    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.  ...
>
>Of course there is another perspective to the Garden of Eden
>story: Imagine that you are a very intelligent and very powerful
>father of two small children.
>
>Now put your children in a room filled with all kinds
>of wrapped toys. In the very middle of the room, with
>the biggest box and wrapping there is a present.
>
>You tell your two children that they can unwrap and
>play with any toy in the room EXCEPT that one.
>
>Then you leave the room.
>Why should what happens be of any surprise? 

Pretty good.  Now add one little thing - if the children *do* unwrap the
big present you give them a horrible disease (old age) and punish any and
all their relatives (except yourself of course) for their actions.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:35:38 GMT

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>When I say faith, I mean blind faith.

As far as I can see the "blind" here is redundant. If what you do
is not "blind" then it is not faith!

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This pi "thang"
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:18:24 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

   In article <1992Sep4.091437.8888@hsr.no> paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
>  writes:
> 
>    >The bible is *wrong*!!!
>    >This is the real value of pi:
>

[lots of numbers deleted]
 
>
>    >Get it????
> 

Holy Zeus! Did you type all those numbers in by hand????? If so - I submit
you as evidence of the power of atheism to motivate a person to incredible
feats of endurance and fortitude!

sh
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:41:38 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug22.131418.1920@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
><sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
[Gordon]
>>>How do you populate an entire world from two people in 6000 years?
>>
>>  i don't know, i wasn't there.  and it isn't the bible that says the 
>>earth is however many thousand years old--it's certain *humans* deducing
>>that from scripture--making certain *huge* assumptions.  taking the bible
>>as divinely inspired doesn't mean we take everything, including the 
>>parables, poetry and metaphoric language, literally.  it means reading
>>parable according to the rules of parable, poetry as poetry and metaphor
>>as metaphor and literal description as literal description.
>
>I would like to second this statement.  The concept comes from people taking
>the English translation of the Bible too strongly.  The word translated "day"
>in the Genesis passage can mean day (as opposed to night), 24 hour day, or
>an indefinite period of time (all from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary).

Regardless of the length of life and "days", scientific fact tells us that
such a small gene pool with constant inbreeding would generate such a
sickly race that I doubt if they could have lasted long enough to make a
decent sized village.

>                                                                     Besides,
>there are no scientific statements in Genesis except that God created
>everything (which science has not disproved, and tends to support, at least
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Science also hasn't disproven that I didn't just create the whole shebang
just 10 seconds ago.

>right now--that's why Einstein rejected the Big Bang theory).  To compare
...


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:51:59 GMT

In article <ksand-010992182825@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>MAT 19:20  The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from
>my youth up: what lack I yet?
>
>MAT 19:21  Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that
>thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
>and come and follow me.

Note what Jesus is talking about.  "It thou wilt be perfect..."  He is telling
the man what he must do if he wants to get into heaven on his own.

> [...]
>
>MAT 19:25  When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed,
>saying, Who then can be saved?
>
>MAT 19:26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is
>impossible; but with God all things are possible.

The conclusion is that a rich man cannot save himself.  But God can still
do it.  The entire focus is on God saving man.  We are saved by God's grace,
not by our works.  Read Romans 3 about righteousness from the Law, which
no one can achieve, verses a righteousness apart from the Law.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.