HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus' Claim about food and clothes
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:14:27 GMT

In article <ksand-221192180051@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>A good example is 
>the infamout "Donner Party" incident that happened in California
>1846. I could refresh your memory if you are not sure about 
>this incident. Actually, this will lead back to the core issue
>of Christians provided food and shelter, but more about this later.

I'm really kind of wondering now what Jesus means at the Sermon 
on the Mount regarding *and all these things shall be added unto you*.
What things were added unto Paul?  shipwrecks, imprisonment, stonings
and beheading amongst other things.  Speaking of food and drink,
another metaphor comes when he says "whoever drinks the water I give
him will never thirst."  Is there an inconsistency in what he says
or in what we interpret?

Do you feel confused?  I think the point is *that all these things 
will hardly be amongst a God-fearing Christian's primary worries*.
They will or won't happen for the saint.  Why should it matter if
one has Christ?  This sounds scary.  But why should it bother 
anyone?  An addiction to righteousness usually ensues because
that person then has the freedom of mind to pursue said activity.
Death is not a concern either.  Knowing Christ includes a peace and
confidence at heart no matter what happens.  *Lo, I will be with 
you always, until the end of the age.*  On the contrary, *all 
these things* are typically a reason for big worry for anyone
without the peace of knowing Christ to bless them and to sustain them.
For them, LIFE REMAINS ONE BIG RAT RACE.  If neither is your case,
then cheers to you!--whatever floats your boat.  But if you are 
interested, these immediate worries are amongst what the Messiah came 
to deliver us from.

Terence


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.100810.16639@comp.lancs.ac.uk> daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow) writes:
>In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>
>>It amazes me how people who know very little about the religion they are
>>criticizing manage to be so certain about their opinions. Being a
>>fundamentalist simply means getting back to the fundamental ideas taught in
>>the Bible without embellishing it with present day fads, such as the idea
>>that homosexuality is not morally offensive. 


And all note, this person didn't mention one thing about being
a Christian or even mention the love of Christ!  Fundies are
book worshipers......not Christians, but even after this observation
I still will contend that  we are all children of God.

Chuck, the reason many of us are so adament about the seperation of
Church and state is because we don't want to worship a book.  Many
of us live rich and fufilling lives.  Many of us are lucky enough
to reach for God's ever present love.  I will fight till my last dieing
breath to make sure that you and your book worshipping people don't
take control of our lives and thrust your beliefs down our throats.

You act as if God has no control in this world.  You act as if
God only exists through "your" personal belief.  God doesn't need
any of us to exist or to love....We need God's love. I just don't understand
your insistance in judging others.  I don't understand your fear?(this
one really does confuse me, especially coming from a professed Christian,
what are you afraid of?) 

I label people who throw out passage after passage of scripture in
order to prove they are Christian and people  who profess to know
God with such specific certainty as Bookwhorshipers because we as humans can
only revel in what we know "of" God. Not the total of God. What about the 
mystery of God?  It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!  He/she is so intense so 
spectacular.....the whole of God, which a human has know way of totally
seeing is so awsome and beautiful!  The mystery is so wonderful....How do 
you speak for God?  Why you go around making threats in his/her name?  Why 
is there so much anger and fear in your discussion?  

Those things shouldn't be there Chuck....and I and many other will not
let you surround us with that fear and that godlesness that fills your life.
We have chosen God's love over that fear.


Bil Snodgrass III


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:54:54 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ksand-121192182635@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
<In article <bdEA02P72aSV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com
<(Anthony G Rose) wrote:
<> 
<> In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:
<> 
<> >Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
<> 
<> Religion doesn't get one to heaven.  Only knowing Jesus will.  <...>
<
<Or maximize your chances, and believe in all religions, that would
<not hurt, either.

How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Mississippi governor's remark: People for the American Way response
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.070158.20096@r-node.gts.org> ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>Here is a press release from People For the American Way.

> People For the American Way Condemns "Christian Nation" Remark at
>Republican Governors' Conference

	One might respond that "Christian" is still very inclusive.
But those who practice the politics of divisiveness, as the "Christian
nation" characters do, would declare whole groups of professed
Christians to be fake Christians, wolves in sheep's clothing,
followers of false prophets, etc., if they think they could pull it
off. And given where such people tend to stand on social issues, they
would include among the fake Christians all those who support gay
rights, the ordination of women and gays, rejection of Biblical
literalism, and other such things. Just consider many Fundamentalists'
contempt for non-Fundies. And if such characters got their way, they
would even treat erstwhile allies, such as Catholics and Mormons, like
they treated everybody else. Simply consider the common Fundie belief
that Catholicism and Mormonism are little more than cults in Christian
clothing.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:48:23 GMT

In article <ksand-181192184737@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>OK, if we want to continue with comparisons, the Nordic countries
>are maybe the most apathic Christian countries in the world (OK,
>NZ and Australia would maybe get the first place in such a competition).
>Also, all these countries have something in common that the highly
>religious USA does not have. And what is that? A clue, it has
>to do with compassion for the common man.

Are you sure that this is a clue?  My postulate rests on the
theory that humans are *selfish* by nature.  viz.  Put lots of them
together in concentrations and rot from hell compounds on itself.
Look at Taipei, Bangkok, Manhattan, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Sodom...
apathy to the max!

The Nordic countries represent so little of the world's total
population, how can they possibly have problems as bad as the
population concentrations.  When we get that few people together,
I think it becomes more obvious that we actually need each other.
   side note:
   It's hard to find any Scandenavian restaurants around here.  :(
   It's not like Chinese restaurants which are practically at every street
   corner around the world.

I don't know about NZ and Australia.  Their apathy would blow away
my postulate because the last time I checked, there were more sheep
than people in those two places.

>It's called free social health care.
I think a discussion of health care steers away from the point.
In fact, it didn't help the Bangladeshi one bit.

Terence
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:41:08 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

> <I think you're just a chicken, boy!
> 
> Not _just_ a chicken, but in general what you say is true, in so far
> as both I and a chicken are manifestations of Brahman, also known as
> the Ultimate Reality.  The same applies to you, as you should be aware.

No. The ultimate reality is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Who is
the source of Brahman. Brahman is simply the impersonal effulgence of
Krishna's transcendental body. Krishna is the Supreme Brahman. This is
the verdict of the Bhagavad-gita.

> I may well have been a chicken in some previous rebirth of mine, just
> as you may well be born as 33 amoebae next time.  So what?

No. The soul is not divisible that it may be born as "33 amoebae".

> <Kalki "see you on the battlefield" Dasa
> 
> Oh, I see.  You feel secure, because you know that I am not allowed
> to kill you (according to _The Laws of Manu_, 7:90-93, it would be a
> violation of dharma).  So be it.

Are you saying that you are actually following the Manu-samhita? If so,
the SIQ should have been an ace for you! Of course, many people claim to
be following some scripture, but it often turns out that they are simply
picking some injunctions they like and following them when it suits
their immediate purpose, while not bothering with the rest of the laws.
This wouldn't describe your behavior, would it? I mean, you follow all
the injunctions of the Manu-samhita scrupulously, right?

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: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:45:38 GMT

Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God

In article <1992Nov12.023730.17460@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com writes:
>[re: the Coptic Church in Alexandria]
>>Allegedly founded....

>(lungtt)
>This is well documented in Eastern Orthodox sources (mostly in Arabic).
>Cite three references.
Why?  You're not interested.  You'll flame every single one I cite...
In any case, try (if you are truly interested in learning):
(1) the Didache or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"
(2) the Coptic Orthodox Church as a church of Erudition & Theology
    by Fr Tadros Y. Malaty ~1986
(3) any of the letters that Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote on
    his way to Rome in AD 115.

Oops (3) is not originally in Arabic.

>Also keep in mind that contemporary Roman sources
>describe the founding of the city of Rome by twin boys who were given 
>suckle by a wild wolf.  It is not beyond the ability of ancient sources
>to embellish their own history, or be subject to change by later generations.
So what history, that you know of, hasn't been embellished?
If you have a point to make about the subject at hand, I'm still 
waiting for it.

>/You suggest that the Coptics live on lies?
>There are Muslims being murdered for their faith in Bosnia today.  Do you
>suggest that the Muslims live on lies?
Good point.  I suppose this statement is so nonsensible it goes no where.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov22.182414.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 22:17:52 UTC

In article <1992Nov22.182414.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> 
eda673fsys@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Another point that you are wrong is that Jesus is fully God and fully Man.
>This in fact was not fully understood by the selfish and jealous leaders
>at that time.  Reading Isaiah 7:14, the prophet prophecied and foretold the
>coming of Jesus the Messiah.  In that scripture, Jesus is called Immanuel,
>meaning 'God with us'.  If this does not show the coming of the Son of God,
>then I'm afraid you lost me there.

Maybe your translation is not of top quality? Here is what JPS
(ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) has to say:
Isaiah7:10-17(JPS):(10)The Lord spoke further to Ahaz: (11)"Ask for a
sign from the Lord your God, anywhere down to Sheol or up to the sky."
(12)But Ahaz replied, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."
(13)"Listen, House of David," [Isaiah] retorted, "is it not enough for
you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless?(f)
(14)Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the
young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name
him Immanuel.(g) (15)(By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose
the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) (16)For before the
lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two
kings you dread shall be abandoned. (17)The Lord will cause to come upon
you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have
come since Ephraim turned away from Judah - that selfsame king of
Assyria!(h)
f: By insisting on soliciting the aid of Assyria (see 2Kings16.7 ff.;
cf. below, v.20). "Treat as helpless" follows the translation of Saadia;
cf. Gen. 19.11
g: Meaning "with us is God"
h: Cf. note on v.13

>Thus, christianity does not teach polytheism, but has been clearly
>misunderstood by people who read the Bible with a very view of thought.  I
>sometimes try to explain the trinity as an analogy of an egg.  The shell is
>part of an egg and yet is also referred to as egg, the yo{k is another part
>of the egg and also referred to as egg, and lasly the white is part of the 
>egg and is referred to as the egg.  Thus indiviually each part of the egg has
>its name, but they take on the name egg indiviually and well as collectively.

This is the same as Hinduism, *all* is aspects of the transcendent.
We, as unenlightened humans, can not understand the transcendent and
this is why *it* manifests itself as "Gods", in Hinduism, we have also a
trinity of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva the
destroyer, yet these are all aspects of The ONE. And we have Krishna, an
incarnation of the transcendent in human form. And yet, Hinduism is
commonly refered to as polytheism in the West. Why? How is the Hindu
trinity different than the Christian trinity? Why is one monotheism and
the other polytheism?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Satan is a hero
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:20:11 GMT

     Satan is the ultimate hero. He fought the power. He said "I shall not
serve". He fights for man.... when everyone else fights for something else.

     Satan is the American dream... the freedom to run your own life free
from tyranny. Satan is individualism... fuck the powers that be. Satan is
human rights... when no one else wants to fight back.

     Don't curse Satan... Hail him.

    




-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Sugar Daddy
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:03:55 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA


Atheism was invented by God
as a means of keeping away
those who only love Him
for His money.


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:59:35 GMT


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. 

You're by no means the first to suggest referring the atheist to God.
Like the others, you haven't thought this through either. To wit, if
God didn't already exist, he would have been created by the atheist's
request for proof of his existence. One cannot sincerely ask God
anything without first presuming his existence. When the asker gets a
positive answer, does it come from God or from the wanting mind? I
see no way to tell, regardless of how deeply one goes into the heart.

Next time an atheist asks you to provide proof of God's existence,
tell the simple truth: "I have no proof, I only have faith." 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21242 alt.atheism:21396
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Interpretation
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:44:11 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

If the Bible or whatever religious text was supposed to be
interpreted differently from what the words literally sa wouldn't
the author(s) have included that vital fact in the book?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21714 alt.atheism:21782
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:06:26 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <30464@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.155449.11947@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>|> I entirely agree with the sentiment of this (though I have no beliefs
>|> in any "God").
>|> 
>One can argue endlessly about the fairness or justness or lack thereof
>of the way God has set up the universe, but it's not going to change the
>facts. If it really is the way the Christians say it is, it is prudent
>for the non-Christian to decide what he is going to do about it.
Yes, but I don't believe that it IS the sway the universe is.

>Lets take an example from gravity. I can say that gravity is very 
>unfair to me if I step off a cliff or a bridge. However, it works
>very well when I want to walk around my house or drive my car.
>It's not too smart for me to say, "Well, since the law of gravity
>is unfair in certain circumstances, I'm not going to believe in it."
I don't know anyone who says that. If I saw that there was as
good evidence for the existence of God as there is for gravity,
I would believe in him. Doesn't mean I'd worship him, though.

>God is a very wonderful person. I'm glad that we can know him because
>of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 
From the way the fundamentalists say the universe is set up, as
far as I can tell, God is not a wonderful person at all. Seems to
me that if God exists, he's kind of a dick, actually.

As for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as Iven Derzhanski(sp?)
put it, I'd be willing to be dead for two days with no aftereffects
for a couple of hundred pounds(dollars in my case). If you want
me to include the being nailed to a tree bit,m you'd have to go up to
a couple K, probably. Still, I fail to see how that represents any
great sacrifice on Jesus's part.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:59:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.051913.12109@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>Yep.  You've got a point.  But I guess some would argue further, though
>that some of the atheistic barbaric destroyers weren't *true* atheists.
>Go figure.  This argument's hopeless in either direction.
As far as I can tell, most of them weren't atheists at all. Can you
come up with a single example besides communists?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:57:45 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Nov21.003739.19308@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>It didn't sound like that to me. It was not completely accurate, granted,
>but the main idea appears to be "we are animals, aren't we?" with which I
>agree.

Ah, if you do, then there have been homosexual behaviors attributed to
other animal species.  (Seagulls and sheep were the ones I read about...)

--Teddi
-------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc