HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:35:25 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Nov15.064219.19630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus1.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <ksand-141192162324@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>As for defining the ultimate morals, you might ask atheists
>>why they follow the law, instead of acting like barbaric
>>destroyers on the streets. You can't connect religious worshipping
>>directly with a morally correct state.
>
>Following the law?  I've encountered and read of many atheistic barbaric
>destroyers on the streets.  Which religion did Attila belong to?
>Worshipping or not, morality seems to at least have a quasi-chance
>at quasi-limiting that law of the wild.

Torquemada
The Spanish Inquisition
The Crusades
etc. etc. etc.

I have read of many theistic barbaric destroyers as well.  By your
logic I could use these examples to dispute the thesis that religion
leads to morality.  Some would argue, though that these people weren't
*true* Christians.  These same people will turn around and cite Stalin
as a "typical" atheist though.  Go figure.

SD
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:34:35 GMT

In article <ksand-181192184112@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>
>I agree, and the point was that you can't map atheism or theism
>directly 1:1 with morality in a society. I do think moral laws
>follow their own agenda, in many cases we do have a religious
>idea behind the law, in other cases (for instance the US Constitution)
>we have higher ideals -- such as all men are equal -- that has
>no real binding in a religion....
Nah.  This doesn't have to be tied into Christianity.  That would
be jumping way-far to conclusions for some people's appetites here.

I think there was a big protest at Cornell University not too long
ago when a speaker suggested the need to teach morality.  I think
the argument was "whose morality?"  Even the US Constitution is ripe
for flushing down the toilet.  The problem is that morality seems to 
be a hard thing to nail-down and define.  Everyone's got their own
version that they sometimes want to impose on others and then, on their
own, manage to break it themselves.  This reminds me of a C.S.Lewis
argument...

Terence


>> >and even if you did, you might explain the rational behind not
>> >cutting your beard. 
>
>I was referrering to the ancient Jewish laws of wearing beard (gee,
oh.  I was thinking about the laws against trimming your beard.

>I'm growing one just now as well...), and the reason why Jesus
>also had a beard, and to the notion that Jesus didn't want to
>change any of the Jewish laws. It was Paul who did this.

I dunno.  It sounds good to me.  I HATE shaving.  Quite frequently
however, some woman will always manage to influence me into being 
clean-shaven again.  :(  I thought departure from industry back to
the academic world was a good excuse to stop trying to look well-groomed.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Angel of Yahveh.  
Organization: Washington State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.181514.8065@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Note that it was an "angel of the lord" who did the interrupting
>of the human sacrifice not "God" himself, in Gen 22, so there is
>no implication for "God's" omniscience here either way.
>
> <..CLIP...>
>
>Dano

Huh?  The "angel of the lord" IS God.  It's just the Bible's way of 
describing when Yahveh appears in some physical form.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wayne VanWeerthuizen    205 Scott Hall     Pullman, WA  99163
           wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu      (509) 335-1835 (voice)   
 ---------- Only YHVH is God.  Jesus is the Messiah, Son of YHVH. ----------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21841 alt.atheism:21885
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 12:54:27 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov19.221023.1996@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
<>I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
<>know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?
<>But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
<>the original poster - through salvation.
<And what if I specifically want my somewhat insane pit bull Cujo?

Brother, thou dost not get it, dost thou?  Unless thou hatest thine
father and mother, thine wife, thine brothers and sisters and thine
insane pit bull, thou hast no business in heaven.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:53:48 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: 
: Please choose one of the letters as your response.
: 
: Question 1) What is the soul?
: 
: A.
: B.
: C.

D. None of the above.

: 
: Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
: 
: A.
: B.
: C.

D. All of the above.

: 
: End of test.

I wonder what kind of grade I will get this time?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:49:08 GMT

pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
: -- 
: The whole idea that there is an inconsistancy between OT and NT misses the
: mark. God is the same God in both books. His mercy, compassion, stedfast
: love, justice, hatred and anger towards sin are expressed in both testaments.
: In both testaments is the idea that God doesn't change. Start with the
: idea that the same Being is talked about in all the books of the Bible. If
: you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
: NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
: of the Bible.

I have asked this in another thread, but let me ask it again since
I doubt it will ever be answered there.  How do you reconcile the
fact that God in the OT punishes innocent people for the sins of
others with the belief that God is Just?  How can justice have any
meaning in this scenario?  Is something Just simply because God
did it?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:14:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.232749.2566@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.184426.2067@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>   In article <1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>>   Do you have a real argument to propose?
>Just for the record, I didn't write the above question.
No, I did, as the attribution lines clearly show.

>>>   Whether Peter wrote "1 Peter" is in itself debatable.
>It's debatable that Jack London wrote call of the wild.  I think you will
I am not basing an argument on Jack London having written the Call of
The Wild. I was responding to an argument which was based
on the assumption that Peter had written 1 Peter.

>find that many anti-christ scholars of new Testament literature would 
What is an "anti-Christ scholar????"

>agree that Peter probably wrote I Peter, and certainly that Paul wrote most of
>the material attributed to him.
Most people agree about Paul. I have not hears such agreement about 1 Peter.

> This document has undergone great scrutiny
>as other documents have, and if, for example, if you look at lists in
>Eusebius, you will see that it was not even among the debatable books
>because of the surity people had of its authorship.
I'm really not interested in Eusebius's opinion. He's a church historian
and therefore not a real reliable source for this sort of thing.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:19:01 GMT

In <1992Nov8.055610.26849@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

>In article <92312.110835ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>#In article <1992Nov2.191505.8118@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.
>>#es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:


>All of this is getting a little far afield. Someone (I can't remember
>specficly who. It's late and I _am_ tired) claimd that the argument
>for prexistence, that God knew everybody before that they were
>created souly by God (ex. nihlo) is a part of "orthodox" Christianity.

Not necessarily.  There seem to be at least three views:

1.  God does not perceive time as we do.  All times are equally present
to him.  [William James calls this the "block-universe" view.]

2.  God creates individuals and does NOT know ahead of time all that
they will do. [William James endorses this view.]  Orthodox Christianity
generally frowns on this view since God's "omniscience" is usually taken
as a given, but "omniscience" could, IMHO, be interpreted to mean knowing
all that IS happening or has happened.

3.  The one you give.

>If God knew you before your creation, to the extent that He knew
>every thing about you, and then created the man to match his
>foreknowledge, then the created enitity is entirely metaphiscally
>dependent on God. Everything that the man can do, has been predetermined
>by God. This type of Omnicient and subsequent creation effectivly
>denies Free Will.

I agree with the above analysis, although possibility 1. above cleverly
gets around it.

>The mormon point of view says that God knows the heart of every one
>who has lived, and will yet live. However the soul of Man is co-eternal
>with God. There is a part of Man which is _not_ created by God.
>God may know everything about Man, but God does not determine Man.

This is the first I have heard of this aspect of mormonism.  Does it
teach that the soul was once a part of God but split off from it at
some point, like the Gnostics and Manichaeans did, or does it teach
that souls were always separate and distinct from God?  

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21837 sci.skeptic:20069 alt.censorship:8994 alt.sex:37216
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:48:02 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <spurrett.52.722262716@superbowl.und.ac.za> spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.102536.16682@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.094726.21497@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>
>>>I may happen to find the use of the plural "they" awkward (particularly when
>>>used with singular forms within the same sentence) but if this were to
>>>become an accepted use--fine.  Right now, it is still considered gramatically
>>>incorrect, and therefore, I find it rather awkward to use when writing.
>>---------------------------
>>If someone came up to you and hit you, would you hit them back?
>>(Gee, works fine to me; isn't even awkward.)
>>
>Huh?
>
>Why would you want to hit more people that hit you in the first place?  It 
>may not be `awkward' to you, but it's grammatically incorrect, and when it 
>comes to _hitting_ downright rude.

Why dost thou imply that more than one person wrote the post to which thou
repliest? The pronoun "you" is plural, "thou" is singular. :-)


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus not a prophet, Son of God
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:39:55 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <92325.150912RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>  I also realised thru' our correspondence (with R. Pitts and S. Wiggins) that
>  most western christians are unaware of the fact that Allah is the God of
>  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and all humanity. Allah is not different from the

This is your and Islam's understanding or statement, correct?

Christian theology states that one has to have the Father AND the Son.
If you don't have the son, YOU DON'T HAVE THE FATHER. 

It appears you have a god, but it isn't the same as the God of Abraham.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Is satan really evil?
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:27:09 GMT

I've recently read the bible,and am stunned and horrified at the cruety and
irrationality of the christian god. It is mean,spiteful,selfish,demands
we obey under pain of (eternal!) suffering.i could'nt believe it!why do
some people believe in this god,and why follow it?
In the flood,innocent beings of all kinds are killed (even human babies!)
The chosen people move about the landscape,annihalating people as they go.
God's punishments in the old testement are nothing short of ridiculous
and cruel.he wants our faith and obedience,yet refuses to offer evidence of
his own existence? much of the bible surely cannot be read literally,
some statements are crazy e.g. the new jerusulum in revelations is huge
and perfectly square;such a city can only fit on a flat earth!etc, most
of whats in the bible conflicts with evolutionary theory,biology,physics
etc. So why should i believe in it?
Why do some people believe Satan is evil? dosen't satan simply want us to
be ourselves,to make our own choices and morality?Lucifer seems to be
the opposite of god;he wants us to be us,not just computers whose
programs are scriptures.I don't belive in 'GOD' or Satan;but would
worship Satan if i did.if it is true,was Satan fighting for us as well as
himself?to free us from god's yoke?
please,could i have replys on this issue?replys based on what satan did/
wants,not on statements from the bible saying he is evil or whatever;
after all,the bible is written by pro-god people.
what is so wrong about inventing your own morality?i follow my own
personal (atheistic) beliefs,i judge them adequate;i try to cause no pain to
others,actively try to help out people who need help,as well as attempt
to weaken religion if i possibly can.what is so wrong with my morality?
nothing that i can see.

see ya
stephen botha,christchurch,new zealand.
From: jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch)
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:30:20 GMT

With Richard Pitts example 

>Often in the Books of Moses (Gen - Deut) we see where it is recorded that God
>told Moses to write that down.

I have to ask if writing was even around at that time. If there was then in what
language was he writing?  And how many times had it been translated/copied before
it reached the Bible that we know today? When was the Bible actually written?
And who by? How did the person who wrote it collect all the stories? 
How is it possible that anyone could have wrote the story of Adam & Eve in the 
first place and in the second place isn't it now fairly certain that we evolved
from apes. Thirdly we could not have originated solely from Adam & Eve as there
would have been too small a gene pool. Forthly if we did then their children must
have had to copulate with each other to have children which I believe is against
the teaching of your god.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:30:30 GMT

In article <Bxs8r4.3LD@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	There is a notable differance that Ivan is overlooking. Richard's 
>point was that the disciples gave their lives for the message of the 
>gospel; and that if the message was false, they would have known it.
>Richard's point is not simply that these men perished for what they
>believed. His point is that these men were in a position to know the
>veracity of what they said.
The problem is that Richard's chain of logic depends upon two
things which are highly tenuous.
1) The "fact" that the disciples gave their lives.
  In fact, we only really know well that Paul and Peter gave their
  lives, and Paul was not in a position to know that Jesus had
  not risen.
2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
but as I say, he was in no position to know. Whether or not Peter
was in fact teaching this is at best debatable. It is even more debatable
whether or not retracting that proposition would have saved his life.
I suspect not. I seriously doubt that those who were involved in
killing Peter were interested in such fine theological distinctions
as whether or not a Jewish magician and Messianic pretender had
been resurrected after being nailed to a tree.
  
>	This is were the notable differance comes in. People do not 
>throw their lives away for a lie, when the know that it is a lie.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Didn't Joseph Smith die a rather violent death?

-Ekr
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:30:18 GMT

In article <Bxv7FI.9E7@cmptrc.lonestar.org> jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence) writes:
>To the Christian (the Jews don't have a hell, the lucky people), Hell is
>the absence of God. Satan in NOT the opposite of God, but the absence.
>Big difference.
Huh? To my knowledge this is not true in either tradition. The OT and NT
both speak of a literal Satan. In the OT, he's the prosecuting attorney
of the divine court. In the NT, he is more or less the opposite of God.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:17:49 GMT

In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
> I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
> indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted.

	Well, I wouldn't care if every teacher in my school district
were gay or lesbian.  If they were good teachers, I'd send my children
there with no second thoughts.  Homosexuality cannot be taught.  You
either are or you aren't.  I myself am terminally heterosexual, and no
amount of "teaching" or "influence" will cause me to have any sexual
interest in men whatsoever.  What's to fear?

> the perverts do whatever they want to in private, but they have no
> right to push their lifestyle on me or my family.

	Agreed.  It would be a waste of their time and mine.  I'm.
Just.  Not.  Interested.

> If you think this is not a legitimate concern, you should watch a little
> more television. Last Sunday I turned on the tv just in time to see a news
> report in which a lesbian sat with a group of 10 year old kids at some
> public school telling them all about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.

	"Wonderful" or "no worse than not being lesbian"?  There's a
difference between teaching lifestyles and teaching ABOUT lifestyles.
I suspest it was the latter that was happening here, not the former.
I am puzzled, though, about why 10-yr olds were involved.  There's
probably some context that you missed before you turned the TV on, and
I would've liked to know what it was.

> It's time for the rest of us who have some standards of morality to
> take back our society from those who are pushing us to accept and
> tolerate their immorality.

	I have some standards of morality.  They just happen to be
much MUCH more lenient, and IMHO more rational than yours.  In this
case, my principle "If it doesn't harm someone who doesn't want to be
harmed, it's not a problem," applies.  Homosexuals are not bothering
me or mine, so I have no problem with them.  <shrug> But that's just
me. 

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
        HI!  I'm a mutating signature virus.  You can resist helping me spread!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fVs9KXt@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov19.033859.20728@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 1992 05:24:37 UTC

In article <1992Nov19.033859.20728@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>What is this obsession of yours with Paul? I think we can say pretty
>safely that he didn't edit or write the Gospels, since they
>are usually dated well after his death. Moreover, it would be
>rather strange to have a single author edit four such disparate
>documents. You really should study some modern NT criticism before
>you say such inane things.

"The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Hyam Maccoby. A
provocative work arguing that Jesus remained a faithful Jew and that
Christianity was created by Paul, who synthesized it out of Gnosticism
and other Hellenistic cults. ISBN: 0-06-015582-5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism