HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Think of that
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:59:41 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

So, when the world is as simple as it appears to be to Antti...?


;-)  ;-)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: sometimes we rhyme slow but sometimes we rhyme quick!
	<1992Aug21.140106.1863@oclc.org> 
	<1684DA1CE.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> 
	<92237.150403HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:05:43 GMT

In article <92237.150403HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>No, Hebrew doesn't have capital letters.  Sorry.

As a matter of fact, Judaism doesn't even have a name, like God, for the big
kahuna. YHWH is a place holder for He whose name is not to be pronounced, He
said "I am that I am". He did not say you can call me God. Oh, and by the way,
Hebrew doesn't have vowels, but it is a phonetic language whose type is
attributed to the Phonecians who were ancent mariners of the eastern Med. and
of whom we know almost nothing.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:49:47 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

>Hit me hard with the fruit. I am ready to see and I am ready to take
>responsibility for the knowledge that I gain. Ain't no shame in my game,
>because I have eaten the sacred fruit and I will continue to as long as
>I am a HUMAN BEING. This is how the creator created me, and I will not
>let her down. Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like
>me. Good .... DAY!

  just curious paul.  what do you think happens when you die?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:10:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714968041@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
> brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
> we do on faith alone.  and i don't say my view is right because it
> comes from me or is somehow a subset of me, but rather *because* it 
> is eternal, separate and objective.

And I state that our views are based on pre-knowledge obtained by
our brains, and that objectivity is a myth. I agree that we can't 
state what is right or wrong. While you state you could. And my statements
are in contradiction with yours. Which evidently shows that your views
are not objective and universal, rather views created by your mind.

Which leads to God and empiricism. An impossible task as long as 
our brains are part of the view creation. Faith seems to be your
key that opens the door to objectivity. However, I could use
my own key and lock the door because the faith in non-objective
observations is a pretty strong argument. I have faith in that
most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
truth would create a *universal* religion.

Cheers,
Kent
 
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship (Buddhist perspective)
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:34:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.103102.7231@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca wrote:
>  Re: self-worship
> 
> The Buddha taught "anatman," that there is no such thing as the self. It seems
> likely to me that if questioned on whether or not his aim was to become God,
> one with God, realize Nirvana, etc., a true Buddhist would smile mysteriously
> and say "There is no self to become anything, there is no becoming, and nothing
> to become, neither is there any realization to attain. So what possible aim
> could I have? <smirk>"   

I assume this confirms my statement that Christians believing religions
not tied to Christianity worships self is totally false. Especially
when there's no self to become anything anyway :-).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:07:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BtLLu6.Hrs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>
>The use of hyperbole in a blanket condemnation is a questionable
>practice at best.

I don't see why.  I don't agree with the blanket condemnation here
specifically, but I don't see why hyperbole or other ironic
construction is inappropriate if one is making one.

>[Mr. Graham wrote]
>>>>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.  (Disclaimer:
>>>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>>>understand differing points of view.)
>[I replaced the disclaimer.]
>
>>Not at all.  To the best of my knowledge, most of the children born in
>>parts of the world suffering from overpopulation are born within
>>wedlock, and most of the groups with the attitudes Doug cites do not
>>advocate continence within marriage, often quite the opposite.
>
>I mentioned nothing about wedlock.  I'm talking about abstinence as a
>form of birth control.  It jives with opposition to artificial means
>of birth control, sex education, and abortion.  (Disclaimer: see the
>above disclaimer.)

I think we're all looking for the word "jibe", here, for what it's
worth.  I notice that in addition to reinserting your disclaimer
you've inserted the phrase "artificial means of" before "birth
control", which is the only way you can support your position
(abstinence as birth control is meaningless if birth control is
opposed).  Even so, abstinence apart from compete sexual continence
and for purposes of birth control requires rather sophisticated sex
education, to say the least.  I suppose this allows for "have sex when
you want a baby, and not otherwise".  In principle, this could lead to
limiting population, especially if those forms of sexual behavior
collectively known as Sodomy were not also opposed.  In practice it
ignores human nature, and leads to overpopulation.

In the real world, those groups who tend to oppose birth control, sex
education, and abortion also tend to take to heart "go forth and
multiply", rather than whatever form of family planning, so those
groups' teachings still do not jibe well with saving the Earth.  And
we haven't even touched on the James Watt approach to environmental
conservation... 
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:28:27 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>I am investigating moderate Christianity in another thread, but I
>have some more questions.  (unrelated to one another)

Whether I am moderate I don't know, and I cannot speak for other
moderates, but I can speak for myself.

>1) If the Fall is mythical, there is no historical basis for Original
>Sin.  How does moderate Christianity justify the doctrine of
>Original Sin?

I think the Fall is probably mythical.  I do not see any basis for the
doctrine of Original Sin.

>2) The founding fathers were quite vocal about preventing religion (vis.
>Christianity) from interfering with the government.

(Aside: Though this was certainly important, their aim may also have
been to keep government from interfering with religion.  Many early
colonists came to North America to escape religious persecution by
governments.  Separation of church and state is advantageous to both
the church and the state.)

>  Do you believe
>that Christianity has cleaned up its act enough to be given a second
>chance (especially considering the fundamentalists seem to be in the
>vanguard of such efforts)? 

I'm not sure what is meant by giving Christianity a second chance.  If
this means giving it a chance as a state religon, then my answer is
no; the kingdom of God is not brought about by forcing it on a
population.

> If fundamentalism is just a minority,
>why do moderates allow them to set the agenda?

I believe there are better ways to bring about the kingdom of God than
to work through government channels.  My answer is, "because moderates
have no political agenda."
-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Date: 31 Aug 1992 21:52:10 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Young Jeff) writes:

 I can't remember if I got this same reply earlier here or via email.
 Since I haven't seen a reply yet, I will risk repeating it.  Orig.Sin.
 places the blame for the world's woes directly on us.  Lack of OS places
 the blame directly on God since he created the world such that
 evil was unavoidable.  What does this say about the justness of God?

Of course one could make the argument that with or without original
sin, if god had foreknowledge, and if god was the creator, then god
created "evil". 

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:46:53 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: The owls are not what they seem.

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

>In article <1992Aug24.150050.15223@spdc.ti.com> 
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>Man struggles to find an easier way to salvation.  If you read the bible
>>it clearly states what must be done for salvation. 

>Which Bible? I guess you are refering to Luke 14:26?

Oh get off this verse, will you?  You obviously have never heard of
exageration or hyperolae?  Look at this:

|----------+----------|
^                     ^
|                     |
+-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...

By ***COMPARRISON***  ***COMPARISON*** your love for everyone else ***SEEMS***
like hate. 

The Bible uses poetry, metaphor, allegory, simile, parables and every other
literary device.  Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

 -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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:27:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.142902.16491@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> 
> >======================================================================
> >Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):
> 
> >BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT
> 
> 	You already published this nonsense in alt.atheism . Wasn't that enough?

Scared?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:17:10 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714252726@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>> 
>> Paul Harvey writes:
>> 
>> > One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
>> >find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
>> >authentic individual living an authentic life.
>> 
>>   and the way of self-worship because there is nothing certainly-knowable
>> greater than yourself [like God(tm)] to judge whether you've got god or not.  
>> at this level when you are in control of god's definition, you control god,
>> thus you are god.

>How does this differ from human religious groups that control how
>god should be worshipped?

  it doesn't.  it's the same stuff.  human beings have individual, personal,
internal relationships with god in jesus.  without that, social religious
influence is meaningless, which is why i at one time and many all the time
leave the church because they have no personal relationship with god
and the church is not enough to give someone god.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:18:27 GMT

In article <92241.135530HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> 
HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
        What is the Septuagint?  Which Ptolemy commissioned it?
        What tradition explains its name?  Why is it important?
<Greek translations of the OT.  Ptolemy III? Soter?  (I can't remember)
<Seventy scholars were locked up in separate rooms, told to translate the
<Hebrew OT into Greek, and all came up with exactly the same translation.
<The Septuagint is the version of the Bible used by all NT authors for
<quotations from the OT, was the OT used by the Greek Fathers, and is the
<official OT of the Greek Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches.

I just remembered a bit more about the Septuagint. It was 72 translators and
supposedly this represented 6 people from each of the 12 tribes. Note that
the residents of what was Israel at the time of Christ and after apparently did
not know Hebrew good enough to read the scriptures directly and used the 
Alexandrian Greek Septuagint. Thus they were more Greek than Hebrew, certainly
not very good followers of Judaism. This period is often called Helenistic 
Jewry as it should be clear that they were not in very good contact with the 
center of Judaism which was then in Babylon. At least they obviously skipped 
the usual Biblical Hebrew classes. Also the only incidence of forced conversion
of non-Jews in the history of Judaism occured when the Greeks where running
Jerusalem, thus not really part of true Jewish history. Judaism was not and is
not a conversion religion. Christianity was created in the lands of what was
once Israel, and what is again today, but the notion that Jesus and the first
Christians were Jews is questionable. If they were Jews, they were not very
good students of Judaism. This is similar to the British claiming they were
Romans well after Rome fell. Their King was Arthur. The hope of the Bretons
was that Arthur would return to liberate Britain from the Anglo-Saxon-Jute
Germanic hords. The hope of the Christians was that Israel would once again be 
the homeland of the Jews and the temple would be rebuilt. Some interesting 
parallels. Don't you think? Arthur, (Arturus the Bear), was searching for the 
Grail, what was Jesus, (Yeshua or Joshua), searching for? Were they both
looking for the source, the Creator Mother? Patriarchy is a funny thing when
you think about it, isn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:04:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.113456.8093@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>A good friend of mine has been married for about 15 years.  Two years
>ago, while his wife was giving birth to their third child, there were 
>serious complications, and she had to undergo an emergancy hysterectomy
>to save her life.  After this, sh refused to have sex with her husband, 
>as it was her belief that having sex without the possibility of bearing
>children was sinful.
>
>When he suggested they see their priest for counciling, she agreed.
>
>The priest told him that she was correct in her actions, and to pressure
>her into a sinful act was sinful on his part.

   That sounds pretty apocryphal to me.  You sure it wasn't a friend of a
sister-in-law of a cousin of some guy who knows a good friend of yours?  If
a priest really did say that, he was just plain wrong, and not speaking in
accordance with Church teaching (which type of action is not unheard of).

>If that is not representitive of the catholic church's attitude in re:
>sex and conception, I don't know what is...

   Well, that _isn't_ representative of what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Catholic Church would likely consider the woman in your story to have
the disorder of scrupulosity.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:16:13 GMT

(Douglas Graham) writes:
>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that there is only
>a finite amount of arable land on which to grow crops.  Eric pointed out
>that the amount of this land is decreasing due to soil erosion, and the
>yield of the remaining land is decreasing because of the reduced use of
>fertilizer.  I don't think it does take a great deal of thought to see
>that our ability to produce food is decreasing.  Perhaps you disagree
>with one or more of the premises, but if so, I wish you'd say so rather
>than just ranting and raving.

Actually I disagree with the assumptions, yes, namely the assumption
of "finite arrable land". Go build a big donut shaped space-craft with
big windows. Stick it in orbit and watch the food grow. Then make another
and another and another ..

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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15350 alt.atheism:16306
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:04:29 GMT
Organization: Butt-inski's Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:20:20 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

>That sounds like Christianity, not Buddhism. Buddha acheived enlightenment
>and came back to play with the children. Joyful participation in the sorrows
>of the world, that is the way of Buddha. Not HATRED of humanity and human
>life. Not desires to be a martyr. And enlightenment is not becoming God, that
>is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

  no, check out talk.religion.newage and ask shirley maclaine.  it's a big
and growing philosophy that enlightenment means realizing how each of us
is god.  *that's* what's presumptuous.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 2 Sep 1992 00:30:39 GMT
Organization: alt.ketchup survivor
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


  (Young Jeff) wrote:
  >Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
  >to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
  >that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
  >fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
  >than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
  >passing the buck on this?
  
  >(Paul Harvey) replies:
  >The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
  >should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
  >good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
  >for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's
 
  >(Dan O'Connell) reply to the reply:  Since it was the creator's intent,
  >the creator is responsible.  Although Adam & Eve may have thought they had
  >"free will", from god's point of view, they didn't have since
  >he was omniscent.
  >He could have given them the gift of knowledge without
  >exacting any price whatsoever, yet as he gave, he took away.
  >This could be called capricious behavior.
 

(Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) summarizes:
 
 I believe the premise is wrong here.  The Adam & Eve "thang" really wasn't
 over a piece of fruit nor was it over the attainment of the knowledge of 
 good and evil.  It was over whether Adam and Eve would obey or disobey 
 God.  God gave them a clear order.  Man disobeyed God.  Nobody forced

But this still doesn't answer the point Young Jeff and I 
were making.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:49:25 GMT

Dan O'Connell writes:

>(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? 

  this is a very easy critique to wiggle out of.  this situation assumes
the human nature of the two children today is the same as the nature of
adam and eve as they were created in harmony with god as he was providing
all their needs and of their own accord they ate not of that tree until
tempted.  so the analogy becomes faulty on that assumption.

---                          
     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?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15075 alt.atheism:16057