HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:29:15 GMT

Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov11.012018.3204@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
: |> Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
: |> 
: |> Wait a minute, you have not answered ALL of the questions.  You seem
: |> to have difficulties finding all the contradicions, so I will list
: |> the contradictory answers I see impossible to SIMULTANEOUSLY resolve.
: |> 
: |> Q1:  Mathew 26:14-15, 27:3-8 clearly says Judas returned ALL
: |>      the money to the priests.
: I understand how one can get that, but I think it takes some inference
: as opposed to being clearly stated. It seems to clear to say that Judas
: showed up with all the money. However, the priests did not want to take 
: it back. The verse which describes the throwing of the money does not
: say that he threw it all, that has to be inferred.

Hmmm,  your reasoning seems very strange to me.  If it is written that
he arrived with all the money, and then it is written that he threw the
money, it does not take much inference to say that he threw all the money.
I think it takes MORE inference to say that he did not throw all of it.

For example, if I was taking an English Literature class, and I wrote
"He arrived with all the money" and then wrote "he threw all the money",
my instructor may ask why I am being redundant.

But, that is just my opinion.  I think things look deceptive if you have
to assume things that do not follow the simplest story.  For your story
to work, Judas would have kept some of the money, and bought a plot and
died there.  But then there would be two fields of blood, the one that
Judas bought and the one that the priests bought.  This looks alot like
"smoke and mirrors" to me.

: |> 
: |>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that he bought some land with
: |>      (at least some) of the money.
: |> 
: |> Q2:  Mathew 27:7 clearly says the priests bought it.
: The details of the actual transaction are not given.
: |> 
: |>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that Judas bought it.  
: Again, the details of the actual transaction are not discussed.

I do not see where this will get you anywhere.  Who cares if middle men
(realitors) were invloved.  If I ask someone to buy me some land, I am
still the one buying it.  If someone asks me if I bought that house, and
I say "No, a realitor bought it for me", the person will laugh at me.

"And they consoled together and bought the potters field" seems detailed
enough to me.  The "this man acquired a field, with the price of his
wickedness" is not as detailed as the priests interaction.  This I will
agree with you.  But, the clearest reading of Acts says that Judas bought
it.  Somehow Judas acquired a plot of land.  If he did not buy it, maybe
the priests donated it to him?  This seems to be a bit misleading...

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 23:57:43 GMT

Let me be very blunt about what we need from Mr. Sandvik.  He must
either retract the claim that he is morally sound, or say something to
counter my refutation of the claim.  Repeating "personal attack" again
and again will not make his case.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
>> In my last post I noted that I see no need to continue if Mr. Sandvik
>> withdraws his claim that he is morally sound.  As Mr. Sandvik has
>> asked a question which implies he would like me to continue, I must
>> conclude that he has not withdrawn his claim.  Perhaps he would make
>> the status of his claim clear for us.

>And so on, personal attacks one after each other. Sigh...

I suggest Mr. Sandvik may need to define how the above is to be
construed as a personal attack.  The first two sentences are
introduction, and the third is a very simple request (one that I note
was not fulfilled).

>Once again, Mr. Skinner, what is your opinion of morale and atheists
>that have moral values? 

I think morale will be low so long as Mr. Sandvik refuses to neither
withdraw nor support his claim.

He wishes for what he calls "personal attacks" to stop.  I have
already noted what it will take for my interest in this thread to
cease.  Mr. Sandvik must withdraw his claim, or explain why the
counter-example I presented does not make it false.

As for the rest of the question, I just answered it in the post quoted
above.  I wrote,

>To answer the specific question: Yes, I
>have opinions about this issue.  To answer a question which may be
>implied: No, I do not wish to share them at this time.

My status has not changed.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with *in*formation)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.193023.3923@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <lg4uj5INN7oa@news.bbn.com>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

	[How many Bible manuscripts have survived and when were they
	written? -- debate omitted]

>  * As I said in my original post, no one disputes the authenticity of
>     the works of, say, Thucydides - his _History of Thucydides_ is
>     availible to us from 8 MSS, the earliest of which dates to about
>     1200 years after his death.  The Bible must be reviewed for its
>     authenticity just like any other work.  If the classical scholars
>     can confirm the works of Thucydides, how much more reliable is
>     the Bible?

	And are other ancient books likewise confirmed?

	Like the works of Homer and Hesiod?

	I suppose it is really true that the Ruler of the Universe is
a shameless lecher with over 100 illegitimate children to his credit,
that he was raised in a cave in Crete, that he had forced his father
to vomit up all his brothers and sisters and that they all got
together to overthrow him, that his father had overthrown _his_ father
and castrated him, that he is henpecked by his wife, that he had a
daughter who just popped out of his head one day, and so forth.

	Well, it has to be true since nobody would _ever_ make up such
things about _anybody_, let alone the Ruler of the Universe.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:41:05 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

> Aristotlean physics
> Ptolemaic model of the universe
> 
> These models were accepted for well over a thousand years, in part
> because of the authority of Aristotle and Ptolemy.  Yet these models
> were wrong.  Do you see what we are getting at here?  You call
> yourself a "spiritual scientist," yet your arguments here and in
> talk.origins have been nothing but one long argument from authority.

Aristotle and Ptolemy were the counterparts to the scientists of today.
They were mainstream, and they based their sciences on preconceived
notions plus reasoning from available evidence, just as the scientists
do today. Furthermore, their sciences worked well, considering the
relative imprecision of their observational equipment and the scarcity
of observational records to which they had access.

You are not going to say that you accept no authority, are you? Who
taught you astronomy? Is he not an authority? Do you accept that all men
are mortal? On what authority?

I think what you really mean by "authority" is something else. I think
you mean "people who say things I don't want to be true."

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:21:28 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <20NOV199216553744@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
>The reason I ask, it has occurred to me that there could be a secret society
>serving the functions of a denomination among these people.  Otherwise, how do
>we account for the great uniformity of teachings among them?  Who decides what
>publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  Who decides what religious
>denominations will be persecuted as "cults?"  Why do so many fundamentalists
>themselves manifest the same zeal or fanaticism they fault others for?  Could
>these people be dupes of some secret "church?"
>
>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 

I have often thought that there may be an esoteric impulse behind these
various movements.  At what point the leadership becomes consciously
aware the esoteric side I have no idea.  But it is an interesting 
subject.  Not only are the teachings pretty consistent, but they are
subtle and complex.  In the absence of a formal theological hierarchy
the fundamental ideas remain pretty consistent throughout the various
independent Bible churches.

I don't think that these decisions are made in some secret meeting
and then passed on downward.  If anything, it is because the basic
principles that are propagated are fundamentally true, even though
they are only part of the truth and expressed in a particular way.
This, it seems to me, is the reason why there is so much cohesion
among apparently non-denominational churches.

Also note that as for the main doctrines, these churches are also in
agreement with the basic beliefs of the mainline Protestant, Orthodox
and Catholic churches.  The issues that divide them are not central
to Christianity.

Your idea is interesting, but if there is something to it it is on a
little deeper level than I think you have in mind.  One would have
to look at it carefully and ask, what is the real (let us say positive)
aim of these churches that underlies their basic activity.

You might say that there are two well known spiritual organizations that
stand in opposition to each other: Freemasonry and the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Masons belong to Protestant churches, though Masonry does not teach
Christianity.  The independent evangelical churches tend to stand in
opposition to both Freemasonry and Rome.  The question is, is there another
order that stands behind this third stream?  Of course, Protestants, Catholics,
and independent Evangelicals will all claim that it is the true Church of
Christ that is their order.  I don't dispute that, but there may also be a
humanly directed leadership that does not make itself publically known.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Sunday, 15 November 1992 22:48:01 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.13
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <73890@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
# 
# In article <ksand-051192181548@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
# |Richard, here's the issue, as you know both JWs and Mormons as well
# |as Islam acknowledges Jesus as a special person. So you would not mind
# |if your children had a prayer session lead by a Mormon if you lived
# |in Utah, right?
# |
# 
# Kent, I thought I made it clear - it is not a time for a
# pray session lead by some leader, although it can be, but it
# is a time of pray.  If one wants a leader within one's faith
# to lead those of that faith, then that's fine.  It is not
# promoted that we are forcing everyone to pray with one person
# or even in group pray, but individual prayer.
# 
# I think you are assuming it is group lead prayer - not I.

  Of course not; strictly individual and voluntary.  And if you
  believe that, I have a bargain fo you on a bridge...

  Still, we're curious what you intend to do when your kids come home
  and tell you that they're the only ones in their class NOT kneeling
  on prayer rugs facing Mecca (or sacrificing small animals, for that
  matter) and that they other kids think they're strange for not
  joining the group.  Are you so all-fired sure that YOUR kids will
  hold out against the peer pressure?  If they don't, will they be
  afraid to tell you?

  Of course, you're probably taking it for granted that YOUR kids will
  be in the majority and that the pressure will all be in the 'right'
  direction.  Get a clue.  If your brand of religion isn't already a
  small minority in the US, it's headed that way.  It's just that the
  rest of us are a bit more modest about the noises we make in public.

-----------
On a related note:

  Last month, the Florence AZ high school football coach resigned in
  the middle of a championship season.  He quit because the district
  superintendant circulated a memo reminding the staff that by law
  they were not permitted to lead the kids in prayer; he had been
  doing just that forever.  In a press interview, he said that in all
  those years no kid ever complained.  Right.  As several former
  players pointed out, a teenage jock is NOT going to buck the coach
  who makes the cuts, nor is he going to cut loose from the team.
  The prayers may have been 'voluntary', but who was going to take
  the chance?

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:43:52 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> In article <J6qDuB17w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >> Show me this "material mind."
> >You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
> >too lazy?
> 
> The problem is there seem to be a lot of offers of "processes".  How do I pic
> the right one?

This is the right one. Pick it.

sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:53:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Nov18.150114.1039@panix.com>
jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
|
|In <nyikos.722049541@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
|nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>
|>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.
|
|I believe that another orthodox Christion objection to this view is
|that it denies the absolute perfection and unity of God.  If God
|didn't know yesterday that I would have a steamed Chinese bean bun for
|breakfast this morning, but does know it now, then God must have grown
|in perfection since yesterday because he grew in knowledge and
|knowledge is a perfection for beings capable of it.  So yesterday he
|must not have been quite perfect.  Also, since something is true about
|God as he is today that isn't true about God as he was yesterday (he
|now has greater knowledge) then God yesterday and God today can't be
|quite the same and the unity of God is impaired.

Why is there a correlation between knowledge and perfection?  Isn't
perfection living the best you know how?  If I gain knowledge I can
only become less perfect or stay the same if I don't change the way I
live and knowledge about what others do doesn't change my level of
perfection.

Mark
-- 
   I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
   -- Galileo
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21628 alt.atheism:21728
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:56:56 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>>I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.
>>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?

Take it up with God! ;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: exorcism
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:45:10 GMT

In article <g91a2724.41.721662296@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS) writes:
>Need info on above topic. Please e-mail me or post on the group.
>Thanks
>Greg

Well, as we all know with >absolute certainty<, the definitive
work on this subject is the paradigm-setting "The Exorcist";
exorcism has nothing to do with Catholic fear, of course.

Dano
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:51:59 GMT

Please wrap your lines next time.

rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>Next time an athesist asks you to provide proof of God's existence,
>tell him/her to ask God to provide the proof.  If some one sincerely
>wants to know if God is real, they will ask God from the depths of
>their heart to reveal Himself, and He will. However, some really don't
>want to know God so they will never bother to ask Him.

That's "atheist", please, not "athesist."

And I DO sincerely want to know if your God is real, and I DID ask him
from the depths of my heart to reveal himself.  I received no answer.

Why did I receive no answer?  If you reply, 'because my desire was not
deep enough,' then you insult me.

>"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come form the Spirit
>of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (ICorinthians 2:14 NIV)  

In other words, "Those who do not accept the tall tales we tell are
wrong."  That's _not_ the way to convince me.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov17.100707.5348@athena.mit.edu> 
	<1992Nov17.141352.4025@wkuvx1.bitnet>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:35:24 UTC

In article <1992Nov17.141352.4025@wkuvx1.bitnet> 
barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>No, this hasn't been my argument at all.  My arguments are:
>  1) The current version of the Bible is temporally closer to the
>autograph as other ancient works.

If I'm not mistaken, the oldest written text that we have today that we
understand is the Persian Epic of Gilgamesh. The second is the Indian
Mahabharata. Third is probably the Hebrew Scriptures. All three
languages are still widely used today. I would say that all texts are in
similar shape as regards closeness to "autographia" which is actually a
bogus concept since all three began as oral traditions. As for the
Christian Greek scriptures, well, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the
Christian scriptures were written later so we don't even have a written
version of what Jesus preached in the same language. Hardly anywhere
near the questionable concept of "autographia."

>  2) They are regarded as accurate copies of the autograph.

This doesn't make any sense for the time period. You may want to
investigate the word redaction to gain some more insite.

>  3) It would be hypocritical to treat the Bible differently, simply  
>because it has religious implications.

Yes, this may be something for you to think about. By the way, all myths
have religious implications. Religion is just organized mythology.

>  4) Since we do have an accurate copy of the original, let's then put
>it on trial to determine whether or not it is the Word of God.

All myth is the "Word of God", God being a metaphor for the
transcendent.

>The first step in determining whether or not it is the Word of God is
>determining whether it claims to be.

The one who claims to be is not The One. False prophets abound and there
is a reason for that. The process of learning is not easy. Teacher says,
follow me and be free, students follow and fail. Learn from dogma, but
please do not become dogmatic.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc