HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:39:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.151949.13081@linus.mitre.org>, zobell@lute.mitre.org
(Steve Zobell) wrote:
> >    Luke 19:12   He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to
> >       have himself appointed king and then to return.
> >    Luke 19:13   So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.
> >       'Put this money to work,' he said, 'UNTIL I COME BACK.'
> >
> >He is coming back, but this has not happened, yet.
> 
> So you're telling us that these four words buried in a parable undo all
> of the things that Jesus clearly and explicitly stated about his second
> comming?  Can you tell me where I can get my secret Jesus decoder ring
> so I too can undo anything Jesus said using other unrelated parts of
> the Bible!  I'm sorry, but this parable IN NO WAY disputes Jesus saying
> he will return in the lifetime of some who knew him.

I actually agree. This is a parable of a man, it's not Jesus. Sigh,
it's really a case where Jesus himself is not saying this. It's actually
one of the most pathetic ways trying to show that Jesus will some
day come back, using a sentence that doesn't even mention Jesus. 

> MAT 3:2  [John the Baptist:] And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of
> heaven is at hand.
> MAT 10:7  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Good list, I posted a similar one of the same length, and I never got
response back from Richard. I think the evidence in the Gospels about
the quick return of Jesus is just too much for a Christian to swallow.

> REV 3:11; 22:7,12,20: "I come quickly"
Yes, the scriptures end with these statements. It is a good ending
of the New Testament, and I hope people would read the NT to the end.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:27:28 GMT
	<1992Sep30.150659.15178@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <1992Sep30.150659.15178@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
In article <fTg7Sxw@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.233203.6672@cs.yale.edu> 
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Why don't you just answer the question, Mr. Harvey?
>>I did, but I guess it went right over your head.
>No, Mr. Harvey, you didn't.
>I asked a simple question, which needed simply two words. You did not
>answer it. Your posturing is simply annoying, particularly when combined
>with your amazing ignorance.

Posturing? I ask you, who is posturing? Who is ignorant of whom? 

*I*, not *YOU*, answered your question. Get it?

*I* apologize for the obvious fact that *MY* answer did not meet *YOUR*
expectations. Sometimes a tree falls without making a sound, and *YOU* and *I* 
are both to blame for the failure to make that sound, if blame is to be 
placed. If *YOU* wish *ME* to accept all the blame, then *I* accept. It is all 
*MY* fault, *I* am always to blame. But, *I* am not *YOUR* puppet. *I* hope 
*YOU* can understand that and not be so offended when *I* do not respond as 
*YOU* expect. *I* can never live up to *YOUR* expectations. *I* can never act
and respond the way *YOU* want *ME* to. *I* can never live the life *YOU* want
*ME* to. Worlds above and worlds below, NO *ONE* IN THE WORLD LIKE *ME*. 
*I* am that *I* am. And that IS the meaning of a rock!
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:24:51 GMT
	<1992Sep30.185448.17770@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: axe me again and i'll ta-tell ya the same

In article <1992Sep30.185448.17770@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>I repeat my question, Mr. Harvey:

Then I shall repeat my answer, Mr. Rescorla.

>The metaphor:
>Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
>The cases:
>1) Kent is a fast typist.
>2) Kent is a slow typist.
>Clearly, the metaphor has a different status in cases 1 and 2.

If you say it does, then that must be the case.

>Kent seems inclined to say that in case 2 the metaphor is false.
>You seem to object to this.
>There should be, however, some words foo and bar such that we can
>say:
>In case 1 the metaphor is foo.

... that Kent *IS* a keyboard and therefore keyboards must also type fast.

>In case 2 the metaphor is bar.

... that Kent *IS* a keyboard and therefore keyboards must also type slow 
or not at all.

>In case 1 the metaphor is not bar.

... that Kent types fast, the metaphor is that Kent *IS* a keyboard, whatever
that means. Is Kent really a keyboard, or what?

>In case 2 the metaphor is not foo.

... that Kent types slow, the metaphor is that Kent *IS* a keyboard, whatever
that means. Is Kent really a keyboard, or what?

>My question to you was that you supply word substitutions for foo
>and bar. You did not provide them. Hence you did not answer my
>question.

One foo is not always the same as another foo.

The foo that can be named is not the true foo. 

Jah foo! And Jah no got nutin' ta prove!

Context sensitive, my good man, context sensitive.

Why is it that things that are supposed to be good end up so bad and
things that are supposed to be bad end up so good?

Negative becomes a positive, watch me while I prove my point.

Press rewind if I haven't blown your mind.

How ya like me now?
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Date: 2 Oct 1992 21:16:16 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

[I won't see followups that aren't in t.r.m]

In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu writes:
| _THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
|don't we?

Yes, why don't we.  I always thought that the Lot/Sodom story
was about violation of the guest/host relationship.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:43:53 GMT
	<1992Sep30.224428.20515@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Camarillo Brillo

In article <1992Sep30.224428.20515@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>The metaphor is therefore meaningless.
>If it doesn't tell us anything about whether Kent types fast
>or not, what meaning does it have?
>You STILL didn't answer my question.
>All those words, but not an answer.
>More babble.

Eric, I thought of another metaphorical verse for you:

she had a snake for a pet, and an amulet
she was raising a dwarf, but it wasn't done yet

Now, tell me, are these metaphors true or false? Or are they foo or bar?
Does she or doesn't she have a dwarf? Does it really make a difference?
Oh, by the way, here is an interpretation you may or may not like:
The she is Eve, the dwarf is Adam, the snake, well you know who that is, right?
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:30:46 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <16775@pitt.UUCP>, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes...

>In arguing with me, it does no good to find references
>from extremely conservative Mormon leaders, some of whom
>undoubtedly are as rigid and legalistic as yourself.
>Don't expect me to argue Bruce McConkie's side.  There
>are others here who will do that, I'm sure.

Come on now Gordon!  You don't expect ME to do this do you?

I think we should vote on this and perhaps "sustain" you to be 
McConkie's Defender.  I think you could do a fine job of it and
perhaps being forced to read _Mormon Doctrine_ would be a good 
thing for you.

:-) 

Dana
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17126 alt.atheism:18008
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Sep 92 01:42:46 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
: 
: Part of the problem I see is that faith seems to be a term more relevant to 
: matters of action than to thought.  'Smith has faith in the proposition 
: "The sun is 93 million miles away"' is probably a solicism.  
                                                    ????????
I couldn't find this is the dictionary.

: 
: We have faith in causes or the persons who lead them, or in the 
: probable outcome of causes, etc. In this respect, faith is not an 
: exclusively or purely religious phenomenon, and is exercised whenever we 
: trust people implicitly, or seek to carry out some project. Faith is just a 
: combination of the attitudes [or states or habits of mind characteristic] of 
: determination and hope. And, since in matters of action we can never be sure 
: what the outcome will be with certainty--not even "reasonable certainty"--
: faith comes to be thought of as 'being ready or determined to do x in the 
: absence of sufficient evidence'. We could substitute for "x" here "believe 
: p".  

The thing I object to here is "being ready or determined to do x
in the absence of sufficient evidence".  In the case of believing
in God, you talk about "absence of *sufficient* evidence".  I say you
are ready and determined to believe in the absence of *any* evidence.
The evidence Christians claim as theirs is better explained by other, 
more natural means.  Is resurrection from the dead a credible claim?
If credible evidence is available, what is the purpose of faith?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Christian Coalition
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:27:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hello,

I hope this is the proper newsgroup to post this question. I am
searching for the address of the main office for the Christian
Coalition, and so far I have been unsuccessful. If anyone could please
help me out, I would be very appreciative. Thanks very much in advance!

Cheers,
Alison Colman
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Adam & Eve: two human origins?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:19:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Sep24.083859.43294@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> The philosopher Lev Shestov once put forward an idea which I will
> paraphrase (& unabashedly extend):
>
> There are two human origins on this planet, one divine, the other via
> natural developments from whatever was the common ancestor of humans
> and anthropoid apes.  The Adam & Eve story corresponds to the first;
> the evolution story (natural selection plus Mendelian genetics)
> corresponds to the second.  
>
> Humanity as we know it stems from both sources, which explains many
> human paradoxes.

I am curious as to the nature of these "human paradoxes" which, you seem
to suggest, require the Adam & Eve story (or at least some divine input)
for their explanation.

Evolution, ecology and latterly memetics (which is roughly speaking the
study of the evolution and ecology of ideas and thought patterns, by
analogy to genetics) seem to me to have proved themselves rather competent
in explaining most observed human phenomena without resort to the invocation
of the supernatural, and one is tempted on past performance to suppose that
those which remain unexplained will yield in due course.

A few examples of such paradoxes might shed some light, if you'd be so good.

BTW, this is not intended as a flame on either yourself or Shestov. What
I find to be a satisfying explanation, those with different worldviews
presumably may not, and evidence that a phenomenon *can* be explained
by naturalistic means will not convince a believer in the supernatural
that the naturalistic explanation is *the* correct one even if they accept
its feasibility. But I'm interested in any such "tough cases" anyhow, even
if consensus on their origin is _a priori_ unlikely.

>********************************** +.............................+
>*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
>*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
>*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
>********************************** +.............................+

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:12:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca> 
morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>In article <Bv5JCt.LwE@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>|>It could knock the axis of rotation such that one pole pointed towards the
>|>sun and the other away. Thus, no more sunrise and sunset, just light and 
>|>dark.

>Sorry, this would give days and nights that were 6 months in length, but
>the sun would still rise and set.

Also a very bad scenereo. Would mean death of life as we know it.

>Sunrise and sunset could only be avoided under the following conditions:
>   -- 0-degree tilt of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, AND

That's what I meant.

>   -- Earth's rotation period is increased by a factor of 365.25

In the words of tricky Dick, "I'm afraid it's much worse than that". The
main rotation of the axis that points to the sun can be at any rate.
There must be a second, very slow rotation of once every 365.25 present
days such that the primary axis of rotation always points toward the
sun.

>I apologize for injecting science into a discussion of atheism.

I apologize for injecting three dimensional visualization into this
discussion of science. ::::B^}
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:04:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <1992Oct2.103415.27085@hsr.no> david-s@ifi.hsr.no writes:
>
>Last, but not least: Love is a gift from God. We can't as sinners love
>properly and purely unless we are born again.
>

  I read your entire post w/o objection (it was pretty much standard
  evangelical stuff), but I read this line and nearly went
  ballistic.  

  Before I turn the Big Red Flame Thrower on you, let's see if I've
  gotten the message:  since I'm not born again, I can't love
  properly and purely, correct?  Sorry for the paraphrase, but there
  wasn't much else to read into that statement.  

  Thanks!  You've just given me the reason I've been looking for to
  leave my wife and kids.  After all, the love I feel for them isn't
  pure, and it most certainly isn't proper.  Why drag them through a
  life of deception and lies?  Might as well start murdering, too.
  The love I feel for mankind in general must be perverted by my
  sinful nature.  Surely can't use *that* as an accurate guide for
  my behaviour.  

  All sarcasm aside, why can't you Christians get the hell off of
  your pedestal of self proclaimed righteousness?  The rest of us
  live, breathe, eat, love, work, and die on this earth, every bit
  as happy and fulfilled as you do.  Most of us even manage to do it
  without damning our neighbor to hell or condemning their behavior
  that we don't understand.  Note my state of residence, where
  Christians such as yourself are attempting to leglislate
  homosexuality as a perversion, costing homosexuals jobs, self
  esteem, and equal rights.  Now you tell me:  where's the love in
  that?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: The Definitive Free Will Thread.
Summary: Why I believe what I believe.
Keywords: will, free, determinism, beliefs, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey (was Glassboro State College)
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog was predestined to post this article.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:24:13 GMT


Sean Hartigan wants to talk about free will, but I think he's going about it
the wrong way:

> 3. Define "free will."

The problem with this is that lots of people make the mistake of reifying
`free will', imagining that it must be some sort of material in order to
exist, and getting confused over what it means for a concept to exist.

To avoid this problem, I'll explain what I think without using the term
`free will'; I will explain why I believe that I can make choices that are
not caused by outside forces:

    I have experienced a sensation which feels like making choices
    independent of antecedent causation.

That's it, that's my entire argument.  I have experienced, many times, having
to make a choice and making it.  At the time, I felt nothing pushing me into
the final choice, and indeed felt exactly the opposite: that I was freely
choosing to do something.

In answer to questions as "How does it work?", I say I don't know.  I have no
idea how or why it works.  Only that I have a compelling experience of it.

In answer to objections such as "It was an illusion", I ask for proof.  This
is something so basic that a claim of "illusion" needs a proof from first
principles and nothing less.


Before you reply, consider this parallel experience:

    I have experienced a sensation which feels like solving mathematical
    problems.

If you ask me how it is that my mind can add numbers, I have to answer that I
do not know.  But I still experience doing it, and I still believe I can.

If you tell me that my perception of solving math problems is an illusion, you
will have quite a bit of proving ahead of you.  I've experienced it directly;
I remember doing it.  (I just added some numbers to double check.)


I'm sure that somebody is going to argue that I cannot make decisions; that my
experience of freely choosing one option over another is an illusion.  You may
wish to think about whether you believe you can add numbers, and ask yourself
what kind of evidence would convince you that you CANNOT add numbers.  To make
any progress in shaking my belief in my ability to choose, you will need an
argument at least that good.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"I believe in free will.  If it turns out that I am right, then great!, I was
 right all along.  If it turns out that I am wrong, well, too bad, but I was
 fated to be wrong, so it is not *my* error." -- Chris Torek
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:49:03 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-051092193254@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>The intriguing fact is that Jesus is far more written about 300+ years
>later than during his lifetime. In other words we are dealing with a
>myth, something that has gone out of proportions. Same with Elvis
>sightings and flying saucers and elves on pictures.

Why do you so much want this Jesus to be a myth.  Is it that you
realize that he demands a change in your life if he is true?  It
is not that he was a real person, but that this person was God
incarnate and he demands a change from you and you don't want it,
so you claim he is a myth.  For if he was a myth, then he would
have no power over you, would he?  You admit he is someone to be
reckoned with by your own actions.

>Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Oct3.072447.8844@nuchat.sccsi.com> <70009@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<ksand-051092175440@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:13:51 GMT

I think the Romans and Jews didn't write of his miracles, etc. because they
were predisposed not to believe he did them, weren't they?  For one thing,
I doubt too many Romans knew Jesus except by hearsay, and probably blew off
what they heard.  And the Jews, many of whom had the opportunity to see Jesus,
didn't want this guy upsetting *their* religion and rivaling them.  It's no
surprise not to see much about him except from those who believed him.  Yet,
he *is* mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians.  Even the Roman Emperor
heard about him.  So, I assert that his affect on people was incredible, and
news about him spread like wildfire.  But why?  Either he actually did do
miracles or he was an excellent magician/con-man/cult leader.

Like anything, it's easy to blow off what you haven't seen for yourself.

BTW, in the gospels, there are different geneologies given.  One comment I
read says that the one gives the ancestral line through Mary and the other
through Joseph.  Another I read says that "begot" may not mean "the father
of" but "an ancestor of" -- big difference, meaning both are right but give
different ancestors (whoever the writer thought important to mention).