HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:40:24 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Dec9.212429.1434@ee.gatech.edu>, ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
|> Did they kill him? 
|> 
|> -- 
|>      The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
|>                      else lays claim to them.
|> ================================================================
|> Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
I think so. I heard the account as part of a sermon on being prepared
for persecution. If you are really interested, I can ask about the
answer and the source of the account.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Christian Holidays (was Christmas)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:34:49 GMT

In article <1gnqpvINN94k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E.
Stansfield) wrote:
> 
> Actually, the Jewish calender is a Lunar one.  The months always start on
> (I believe) the new moon.  Despite the misogyny of much of judaism there is
> a strong feminine component, even in orthodox circles.  It is the women who
> light the candles on the eve of the sabbath.  
Indeed. Clearly the male Hebrew chillun (and their fiery deity) were of at
least two minds about how women fit into the picture. How modern...Gene
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:12:45 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec11.030818.10089@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>(A) Otherwise God will torture you forever.
>(B) Otherwise the absence of God will torture you forever.
>(C) none of the above

>In article <lif4o7INN7ns@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>I decided long ago that fear is insufficient cause to adopt a particular
>>set of beliefs. Given this, it would logically follow that I should select
>>option C, and its implication that I should not necessairly become a
>>Christian.

>Yes.  I think option C is the wise choice as well.  In fact, 
>I hate being Christian.  To hell with its beliefs too.

	? ! ? 

>They are not essential and I do not venture to persuade
>anyone to become a Christian.  Centering one's life and
>following Christ, on the other hand, is *statistically*
>a different story.

Please explain.

>Let's confuse the consequences with the reasons.
>
>Not by or for being Christian; nor by or for any church,
>but foremost, by and for Christ and His Resurrection,

No comprende.

>Terence

>Have a Christ-centered Christmas or don't have one at all.

Can I have a non-Christ-centered Yule then?

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: An Unprovoked Act of Aggression. (wuz: Re: Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Date: 12 Dec 92 22:19:49 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWv9IWP@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>> Aha! The perfect chance to present my Zen Koan [...]
>
>>Why do I get the feeling you were just waiting for a chance like that? :)
> 
> Are you with me on this?	- R. Perot

Hmm...I'm feeling cantankerous today. 

M'sieu Harvey...

Are you "enlightened" in the Buddhist sense of the term?  That is,
have you discovered for yourself the truth of the Buddha's awakening?

If you would answer yes, I ask: How did you come to this conclusion (that you
are "enlightened")?

If you would answer no, I ask: What makes you think you know what you're
talking about?

Please note that I am not asking for a description of the undescribable
or anything like that. This is a simple yes-or-no question about you.
If you don't want to answer, of course, you don't have to. Still, I can't
help thinking that there are more than a couple of Usenetters who would be
interested to know where you're coming from, so to speak. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

There is nothing outside the text. -- Usenet Survival Guide
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:31:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


I would react by having a head launching, with `pills' and everything.


	:-p (face /w/ pipe)



PRAISE B0B !!!!

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:04:27 GMT


rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>In article <rana.723431431@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
>>Jesus Christ never claimed to be "God" or "son of God". He has
>>always invited mankind to worship God, not him self.  This could
>>be proven by looking at the early historical literature of christianity.

>Jesus did tell us to worship God, but he never rebuked anyone for
>worshipping Himself.  Others did rebuke people for worshipping
>themselves, but not Jesus.  Hmm.

If Jesus never asked people to worship himself, then that clearly
means that he never claimed to be GOD. 


Sincerely,

-- 
||\\  ||         //\\     ||\\         *******************    (Note: 
|| \\ ||        //==\\    ||//         * LOVE FOR ALL    *     views    
||  \\||abeel  //    \\.  ||\\ana      * HATRED FOR NONE *      are 
[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colordo.edu]   *******************     mine) 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Ramblings on the nature of religion (Was: flame bait)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:13:52 GMT

Hmmm...why do I get the feeling that a bunch of fundies will develop
a desire to pray for my soul, or want me to see The Light after reading
this article?  ;)

sleibowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:

>And don't beg off that argument by saying "It's not _my_ experience that's
>superior to yours. It's _Christ's_." The logic is circular: it turns into a
>"This religion is right because God says so" argument.

Well, I've always been of the mind that for any particular religion,
the argument "this religion is right because it works for me" is
a valid one.

I'm a Christian...despite what some fundies or ultra-traditionalists might
think.  I also have a brain, and tend to [mis]use it fairly frequently.
The reason I am a Christian is that many, if not most, of the religion's
basic tenets match my own beliefs.

However, I don't agree with everything mentioned with the backing of
Church authority...especially the "convert or be damned" doctrine.
A few of my beliefs/opinions could be considered heretical by some
Christians.  For example, I believe that Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth
was a person who tried to act like he thought God would act if Sie
were human.  Yes, Jesus was certainly the Son of God, but I believe that
we are all Sons and Daughters of God, if you want to use a family
analogy to describe the God-human relationship.  

Anyway, I think that the important thing to consider when *trying* to
decide which religion is "right" is that the "right" religion is
the one that best meets one's own beliefs and philosophies.

What's the purpose of "belonging" to  or claiming a religion if you
don't honestly believe in it?  Seems to be a bit hypocritical to
me.


--
Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC	| religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK)		| 		-- Thomas Edison
an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:03:32 GMT

In article <12007@boyd.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.040840.27322@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >[All this assuming you were God living in the spirit(no flesh),
> >and you gave that up to become flesh and dwell with the humanoids:-)]
> 
> No.  Giving it up means losing it for ever.  The god in the Christian
> myth definitely didn't lose his well-being for more than 33 years,
> which, when divided by eternity, yields zero.

A quite unselfish act imo, considering he his purported power,
he could write everone off as a bad project.

> 
> >If you(or anyone)were living in a perfect environment and you had no
> >worries, no pain, no hunger, etc. [...], would you(or anyone)give that up to
> >become hungry, in pain, ridiculed, embarrassed, harrassed, and eventually
> >beaten, whipped, and tortured for a bunch of humans? 
> 
> Maybe.  That would be no more surprising than my current occasional
> willingness to leave the comfort of my warm home and go out in the rain.

You go out in the rain to save the world? You must be pretty busy:-)

> Whenever I go hillwalking, I accept the fact that I will become hungry
> and tired.  Being ridiculed by _a` priori_ inferior beings is not a

You're a pretty brave guy there Ivan!

> big deal.  How a god can be embarrassed or harrassed (other than by
> another god) is beyond me.  What else?

Well, the word tells us he made his state lower for the sake of
us which would indicate to me that(in the flesh)he felt the same
things everyone else felt, however, he was on a mission. I'm sure
he didn't sit in the woods at night and cry about being ridiculed,
but he _did_ subject himself to it by incarnating. Big deal(iyo),
I wouldn't expect anything different or you wouldn't be a non-believer.
> 
> >What would the act buy you(or anyone)?
> 
> Depends.  It could be many things, both noble and wicked ones.
> 
> >I don't understand the sentiment that the act was a small sacrifice.
> 
> Neither do I.  It was no sacrifice at all.

Of course you would believe that, so what else is new?
Aye 'im noot imprissed.
> 
> -- 
>  `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
> Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
> * Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
> * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:51:10 GMT

In article <1-g20t_@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> In article 20330@cs.cornell.edu, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
|> >For you who denounce Christ,  
|> >
|> >What does it mean to be a Christian?
|> >
|> 
|> Perhaps it would help if you could tell us all who it is you
|> think is "denouncing" Christ? I have never seen anyone do this
|> on this group myself.
|> 
|> Perhaps article quotations would help, so we (or at least I :) ) can
|> see how and why these folx denounce Christ.
|> 

I'm trying to find out the criteria people use to qualify someone as a Christian.

Rod
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:34:00 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <77716@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
<In article <1992Dec8.113743.26054@lut.ac.uk> A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson) writes:
<>
<>Go on then- answer the subject line.
<
<For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
<that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have 
<everlasting life.

This is the zillionth illustration that at least some widespread
versions of Christianity are incompatible with thinking.  When you ask
someone to provide a motivation for something, and he comes up with a
totally meaningless quote from a silly old book, what conclusions can
you draw regarding his reasoning abilities?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God etc
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:08:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Distribution: talk
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec13170605@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
>   I find it baffling why, from the point of view of religion, it should be
> considered a question of importance whether or not there is a God who
> created the world, or again, whether or not Jesus was in fact a Savior
> of mankind. Surely all this business about the universe being created,
> about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
> irrelevant to what religion is about?

I guess we should coin a new label for a human activity deeply
embedded in fanatical insight, and use the word 'religion'
for something more profound, eh?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: Re: Bible verses for two days
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:11:18 GMT

In article <1gnhbjINNi8k@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
|> verse 12
|> "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for  
|> so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
|> Matthew 5:11,12 NKJV

Having a hope that is above the things in this world allows us to continue
caring for those who less fortunate than us. 

Praise Him!

Rod
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:44:36 GMT

In article <BzFMJF.3Gq@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>Why is it that Christians always use the EXACT words used in translations in
>their daily conversations (rebuke is such a DUMB word), and then talk about
>interpretability and Greek when those words no longer serve them?
>
>Eeek
>
>MAtt I.

For the same reason that, for any particular christian,
the phrases which they like are to be taken literally,
but the phrases they don't like are really metaphors.

They have a cake.  They eat a cake.



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
          Everything you know about God is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:02:24 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec14.195110.4076@cs.cornell.edu> <1992Dec15.021507.9103@bnr.ca>  
  <1992Dec17.170554.25844@cs.cornell.edu> <71955@cup.portal.com>
  <BzGsBv.LoJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

9212.18 e.v.

Michael quotes me and responds:

>"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name
>of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us his
>commandment." [From KJ version of _The Bible_]

>Now what can this mean?  'believe on the name'?  This one's had
>me bedazzled for years.  Anybody help me out?  Don't go trying to
>sell me that old shoe wax of 'believing the right things'.


Well, perhaps a different translation might help....

In <1John.3.27>, someone claiming the authority of John writes:

|This is his command: to give our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ
|and love one another as he commanded.

(New English Bible)


Response:

I think I got it now.  A 'name' is one's power.  Belief is here only
meant to imply trust.  This amounts to 'trust in the power of the
Son of God' (which applies mystically to each and every individual
according to their nature).

To me it means to trust in my deepest, truest self, that I am the
best source of surcease that there is available.


Michael:

IMO, when you take this verse in the context of all of the tract
and my own beliefs, it just says that people ought to practice
love, charity, trustworthiness, courtesy (despite possible social
stigmas), free thought, etc. like Jesus did/is said to have.
Try to act like you believe God (a loving, caring Being from what
I've been able to discern from my chats with Hir) would act if
Sie were human.


Response:

What YOU are saying translates to me as:

Act from God-consciousness, for thou art God.


Thyagi
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:28:11 GMT

markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>>>Why is "pagan" a dumb word? Do you know what a pagan is? Here's my
>>>definition so far from alt.pagan, enjoy:
>>I had read this before, but...
>>Matt I.
>Nope. There *are* other names, such as Earth-based, or Goddess-based, religions,
>but considering that there is *NO* ->One True Text<-, and if you ask 10 pagans
>about their beliefs, you'll get 11 opinions, it's a category. Esp. since most
>of the West is nominally (that is, they claim to be) Xian, it makes a label
>that can be flung at them, so they get the general idea. Until xianity is
>no longer the "accepted" norm, we may be stuck with it. (This is, btw, called
>"realism").

Well I, for one, do not consider Christianity the 'accepted norm.'  I accept 
few norms.  (Peterson, for example).  I do not think that sticking with a name
that tends to help people misunderstand you to be realism.  Using a different
name would have a more positive effect, especially amongst cynics who have *way*
too much fun with the word pagan.
(This is, btw, called "pragmatism").

Matt I.
>	mark
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible verses for two days
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:09:07 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <ksand-161292201255@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|> In article <1gnhbjINNi8k@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
|> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu wrote:
|> > 
|> > This is one of my favorites-
|> > verse 11
|> > "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you and say all kinds of  
|> > evil against you falsely for My sake."
|> > verse 12
|> > "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for  
|> > so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
|> > Matthew 5:11,12 NKJV
|> 
|> I'm sure the Inquisition crew read these chapters daily :-).
|> 
|> Sorry, it's a sad joke.
|> 
Not at all. At least I'm assuming by inquisition crew you mean those
Christians who were tortured. Those folks did have these verses not
only in their minds but in their hearts. They went on to be with
Christ with gladness.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Matt	Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you
	11:		hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk,
	4-6		those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead
	NIV		are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
			Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:05:06 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec16.000221.14664@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> 
>> Why if they believed what people told 'em that Mormons believe, those
>> Mormons would be "baaaad  people, wouldn't they?
>
>What if the sun really is peopled?

That "true prophet of God (the big man)" said that it was. The moon too!
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Date: 17 Dec 92 11:35:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1737@rwja.umdnj.edu> gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal) writes:
>[...] the recent broadcasts that I've seen from CNN all display
>a one-sided story. They all neglect to mention the fact that the the
>mosque in Ayodhya was once the site of an ancient indian temple to
>Lord Rama destroyed in the 16th century (about that time I think) by
>the muslim invader Babar.

That was very unfortunate, but hardly unusual in the 16th century.
Over the last centuries we have come to appreciate ancient monuments,
no matter what tradition they belong to, as treasures of infinite
cultural and historical value.  Destruction in the 16th century was a
common part of conquest.  Destruction in the 20th century is barbarism.

>The reason why the Ayodhya temple was considered
>such a great loss because many believe it to be the birthplace of Rama.

I don't believe anything like that, but I maintain that it was a great
loss for mankind (not just the Hindus). Except it can't be recovered
by causing another such loss.

>Just as the heinous acts of Babar shouldn't be excused, the recent
>acts in Ayodhya shouldn't be excused either.

But it is much easier to excuse Babar's acts than the recent ones.
Babar lived in a different, much less enlightened age.  Has mankind
learnt nothing over the last 400 years?

>I personally don't see the point to causing such a fuss.

I do.

>But they say, India will never be totally secular.

Or anything like civilised.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5859 alt.alien.visitors:9282 sci.skeptic:21519