HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:54:45 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

>paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg) writes:
>>If God is allmighty, can he then create a boulder so larger he cant lift it ?

In article <adams.714666392@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>No, because this is a logical impossibilty....and the question has no
>meaning...no different than you creating a 'square' circle.

Hmm, I guess your God is not so allmighty and powerful then. My God can
create a 'square' circle and she would call it an n-sided polygon. My
God is allmighty and can do anything, including create a boulder so
large that she couldn't lift it. It must be somewhat of a disappointment
having a God who is not allmighty. :::B^}
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: [1 Kings 7:23 and Pi], just the warmup for Luke 14:26
Organization: ah, I gotta go, it's the strobe light
	<1992Aug26.024008.16393@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<BtM488.Ero@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <66999@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:33:21 GMT

In article <66999@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Do you disagree this is the parallel passage to the Luke one?
>This is NIV, but the KJV uses similar wording - thus we can see that
>'hate' in Luke parallels 'love less' in Matthew.

Well, oh allright, for the sake of arguement, I'll go for this strawman. But,
what does it mean? Which is correct? Is one a watered down version of the
other? And what about the previous verses of Matt, or is that a different
issue? Should a good Christian 'love less' so much that in comparison it
seems like HATE? Why would a perfect, all-knowing, demi-God make the mistake
of first saying HATE and later make a correction to love-less? Is HATE a bit
too extreme or was it a different audience? Or just a mistake? Did his
handlers advise him against using the word HATE and towards the word love-less?
Are there other errors or oversights like this in the rest of Luke? Should
Luke just be ripped out? Or just Luke14?

>For Christ and His Kingdom,

roma|amor
In Vino Veritas
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 03:08:30 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <l9qs7kINNbvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
>earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
>the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is 
>enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
>American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
>world population.

	Are there really people stupid enough to pay attention to such
tripe? Geez.

	Food supply is not a constant.

	Duh.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15195 alt.atheism:16172
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: Luke 14:26 HATERS
	<Bszn8I.LrJ@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
	<Bt79HF.E87@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <sbuckley.714252726@sfu.ca> 
	<BtAnKq.Bv5@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <sbuckley.714438372@sfu.ca> 
	<ksand-240892162844@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:24:46 GMT

In article <ksand-240892162844@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
<There are *many* schools of thinking where self-realization implies
<self-termination. So for instance in Buddhism, englightenment ends
<in termination. So you became a God and then you kill yourself. Does
<that make sense concerning worshipping yourself. I love myself so 
<much I will terminate myself. Ugh.

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?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Bush & GOP Using God
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 1 Sep 1992 17:08:38 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

The following is an editorial from the New York Times, Tuesday
September 2, 1992.  It is reprinted without permission.

USING GOD AS A CUDGEL

President Bush's attempt to portray the Republicans as holier than the
Democrats has now drawn the rebuke it deserves from the National Council
of Churches.  In a letter to the White House, the Council asserts that
invoking God's name for political purposes is blasphemous.

The Council's words are timely.  Mr.  Bush would do well to heed them --
and rein in his political confederates as well, including  the
increasingly shrill Pat Robertson.

At the Republican Convention in Houston, only surrogates like Mr.
Robertson and Patrick Buchanan used God as a cudgel.  Then Mr. Bush
crossed the line, publicly questioning the beliefs of his opponents
because, he said, the word "God" does not appear in the Democratic
platform.

The Council's letter was signed by two dozen prominent members of the
clergy, including Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, the head of
the Episcopal Church, Mr. Bush's denomination.

It reads in part:  "We believe it is blasphemy to invoke the infinite
and holy God to assert the moral superiority of one people over another
or one political party over another.  As our Pledge of Allegiance affirms
we are 'one nation, under God.' Not 'over' God or in any other way owning
God.  Any partisan use of God's name tends to breed intolerance and
to divide.

Meanwhile Mr. Robertson grows ever more hyperbolic.  Last week he
urged Iowans to defeat an equal rights amendment in November because
it represents "a socialist, anti-family political movement that
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

It's hard to take such nonesense seriously.  The G.O.P.'s effort to
harness God to its political purposes is another matter.  Football
coaches, political parties and even Presidents routinely seek, or
claim, support from on high.  But it clanks with sanctimony when the
Republicans insist on exclusively alingnment with the Almighty

                                ###


Jack Carroll
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14757 sci.skeptic:14965
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 25 Aug 1992 11:12 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I've removed rec.arts.books and rec.humor from the distribution of
this article.  (I didn't notice that rec.humor was there earlier, and
ended up receiving several pieces of hate mail for an earlier posting.
Thank you, whoever added it.)

In article <1992Aug19.222409.7629@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>In article <19AUG199200230764@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>I fail to see the moral relevance of ex nihilo creation versus creation
>>from preexisting materials.  If human beings were able to create intelligent
>>life ex nihilo, I still don't see any reason to think that enslaving or
>>killing that intelligent life would be morally permissible.
>>
>What do you mean by "morally permissible"?

Permitted by moral standards.  Morally right and good.  Not wrong.

Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intelligent
life created in the latter manner has autonomy?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15027 sci.skeptic:15147
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:31:10
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<ksand-240892175909@wintermute.apple.com>
	<BtLz0w.BBC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: emery@tc.fluke.COM's message of 1 Sep 92 21:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

   In article <BtLz0w.BBC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
   >I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
   >follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
   >really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
   >members.

Actually, that isn't entirely true -- Judaism, for one, doesn't try to
convert non-Jews, although if you're Jewish and non-observant some
people will consider you fair game.  Christianity and Islam seem to be
the two biggies when it comes to proselytizing.

   May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about anyone
   else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May I dare
   make the statement that I don't believe there are many non-Christians
   out there who are fearful because of the gospel.

Scared?  I think it's a (slightly) interesting piece of mythology if
taken properly.  I'm definitely scared of some of the things that
*people* do in its name, though.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15194 alt.atheism:16171
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: I am everyday people, everyday
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.160227.28801@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.
>Please show the intellectual honesty to remove this one from the lists
>of biblical contradictions/errors.

Ah, well I am not THE keeper of the official list of Biblical E's and O's.
Perhaps you should plea elsewhere. I think we can let the readers decide this 
one, don't you think? After all, this "intellectual honesty" is a slippery 
thing. If one digit accuracy is good enough for you, than it will have to do.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:17:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714450274@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   both answers are yes.  all sins have been forgiven.  but that was
> just good friday.  on easter sunday, jesus was resurrected and provided
> with eternal life along with all who accept the sacrifice.  with our
> free will, we must choose to come to god in jesus for salvation.  so
> an atheist is forgiven, but to receive eternal life, one must accept jesus
> as saviour.

I see, the GIFT that has a small footprint stating that one has to
accept certain rules. Once, and for all, this is *not* a free gift.
If this was the case, the atheist would get a *free salvation* and
receive eternal life, without selling his/her soul to a particular
brand of Christianity. 

It is rather a legal contract. Consult your lawyer before signing
it, thanks.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Biblical history: A Quiz
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug28.140525.24067@engage.pko.dec.com> 
	<BtpKyD.BxA@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <1992Sep1.055146.12844@brainiac.mn.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:03:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.055146.12844@brainiac.mn.org> 
jrc@brainiac.mn.org (Jeffrey Comstock) writes:
>What language did Jesus speak ?  The answer is nobody knows.  Most people
>think Aramaic.  I would like to bring these two points up:
>a) He taught in synagogue's, and in scriptures it is documented that he
>   opened the Torah and started reading from Isaiah.  It is generally 
>   believed that Hebrew was only used for religious purposes, and the
>   Torah was written in Hebrew.  As far as I am concerned, Jesus was
>   fluent in Hebrew. 

He probably used the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT. He was not
known as a "formally-educated" man, so he probably only knew how to speak 
in the vernacular of the time which was Aramaic and read the lingua franca
of the time which was Greek. There was also an Aramaic translation of the OT
in verbal and written format that He probably had access to. Most of the
references in the NT to the OT reference the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew
scriptures. The original languages of the NT are Greek and Aramaic.

>b) There is a theory that some fragments from cave 7 at Qumran are fragments
>   of the New Testament.  I don't have the numbers right now, but I think
>   they are 7Q3, 7Q4, and 7Q5.  These are in Greek and have been dated
>   at 50 CE.  Perhaps Greek was used more than people think in ancient
>   Palestine.  By the way, the current issue of the BAR has an article
>   about Greek in NT times, but I haven't read it yet.

It was in heavy use. Perhaps a comparison can be made to the US. English is
what is known as the standard language, yet many speak the previous language
known as Spanish. Very few speak the native languages.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:36:42 GMT


Dano writes in reply to me, steve.gross:

>I get the impression that you think I am saying something like
>"Since god created evil, god is evil". I wish to do nothing of
>the kind, I merely wanted to point out that if (according to
>your theology if I am getting it correctly) god created everything,
>and if god has some amount (if not total) omniscience, then god
>also created the conditions necessary for evil to exist in this world.
>
>Dano

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

God Bless,
Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:22:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714432253@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   well no.  let me explain it in other words.  i grant the reality of 
> spiritual experiences with or without jesus.  they are all real.  thus
> i am not doing special pleading.  what i am saying is that i believe
> from my experience, study, reflection and prayer that non-jesus experiences
> are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god.

OK, if I make a similar unlogical statement and boldly say that
from my experience, study, reflection and prayer jesus experiences
are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god, will that 
now objectively destroy your argument.

Or if I state that by prayer, contemplation and reflection I do
know that the great Cherry Coke God is the creator of this universe?
Did this sound more convincing? 

Please, note, you and I are products of our our brain that collects
input every second. To boldly state that one's personal view is
the one and only right one is as impossible as any other statement
done by a human being.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:41:43 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
: In article <1992Aug28.212457.8588@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: >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?
: 
: God is passing the buck? Why? To whom? Could He be passing the buck to
: someone whom He created in His image? Who would that be? Who is not
: accepting the buck? I for one partake of the fruit of the tree of
: knowledge as often as possible and I take full responsibility for that
: which I learn. Ain't no shame in my game. My eyes are opening, though
: there is room for further opening. I am in need of no one to take the
: responsibility of my knowledge, knowledge of good and evil, life and
: death. I may have the knowledge to make a bomb that can destroy the
: entire world, but I don't need anyone to blaim or save me from doing
: that because I also have knowledge of good, of dharma. The fruit of the
: tree of knowledge hits you hard, with knowledge of both good and evil.
: 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!

Do you believe in the doctrine of Original Sin?  If not, this doesn't
apply to you as I replied to a similar response.  If so, is the suffering
and misery in the world really necessary to accomplish all the things
you describe?  Will there be suffering and misery in heaven?  Will you
have free will there?  Will it be worth experiencing without the
possibility of suffering?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14896 talk.religion.newage:4071 sci.physics:13589
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:27:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug25.233552.29594@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes...
> 
>For instance: compare the species killed since the last ice age (saber-
>tooth tigers, mammoths, lions (in Europe), great bears, the horse in
>the Americas (if not the horse, some large mammal was killed off by
>humans in the Americas in prehistory), etc.... to the effort being spent
>keeping many species alive today.

I think that this is a common, but completely misleading interpretation
of the facts.  Now, ecology is poorly understood.  Simple questions like
why the tropics are biologically more diverse than colder regions and
why aquatic food chains are longer than those on land are not well 
understood.  But there are some things which are known.  Species tend
to have lifetimes on the order of 10 million years.  Speciation and 
extinction tend to work on the same timescale, resulting in diversity 
which is constant on timescales shorter than say, 1 million years (aside
from extinction events.)  

But we, cutting off our collective nose to spite our face, are seriously 
reducing the number and diversity of species on our planet on a time 
scale of decades, not millions of years.  We may in fact be instigating
the greatest extinction event of all time.

Just because species have gone extinct without our help does not mean that
it is morally right, or in our own best interest, to wipe out millions
of species (and thousands of mammal species) in the span of a hundred years. 

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:01:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1322@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
wrote:
> That certainly looks believable:  We can explain the complexities of
> human existance as a series of myths and at the same time explain all
> life by a complex theory that happens to fit the data points as well
> as the "myths" do.

Yeah, I frankly believe that human beings are the greatest fairly tale
tellers that have ever existed. And if we don't create official myths,
we create inofficial ones. Ever wondered why we have excellent fantasy
book sales in US just now?

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:28:06 GMT

young.u.huh writes:

>While there may be some differences or variations in the above
>statements, it appears that, at minimum, one must believe in God
>and believe in some connection between the forgiveness of one's 
>sins and the death of Jesus.  

>What about those who lived in places or times with no opportunity 
>to believe in God or the death of Jesus:  Are they forgivable?  
>If so, what are the criteria for them to be forgiven?
>How would they have known what the criteria were for them?

  regarding the above paragraph, i think it has no bearing on the
opportunity for salvation for each of us, what happens with those
from before jesus time.  it's moot for me because we live post-jesus
with an offer on the table and we have to choose to accept it or reject
it based on the knowledge we have, not based on "what if i lived before
jesus"  it's a personal offer to each of us.

---                          
     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?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc