HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:42:45 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

This is in response to Kalki Dasa's comment on Jesus/Muhammad/Qur'an:
     Kalki has shown a total ignorance of what Islam stands for, as to the
     concept of Wahi (revelation) and the Qur'an, in particular. He asked
     if the Muslims do not accept the authenticity of the New Testament
     accounts about Jesus, where do they get information about Jesus? The
     answer is very simple: from the Qur'an and Sunnah (the sayings of the
     Prophet Muhammad sallal-lahu alaihe was-salam (SAWS)), the last Prophet
     of God to humanity. Prophets get revelations from God (mostly through
     the archangel Jibrail (AWS) or Gabriel, and/or directly from God). In
     these revealed messages are sometimes information concerning past, present
     and future events. Thus, Moses (AWS), without having ever seeing Abraham
     (AWS), was informed as to the details about what happened in those days
     to his forefather, and the same is true for other Prophets of God,
     including David, Solomon, Jacob, Isaac, Elisha, Ezekiel, Zakariya and
     others. They did not necessarily have to read books to get knowledge,
     since revelation (Wahi) is a higher form of knowledge which is ONLY
     granted to Prophets (Nabiim) of God. The information concerning Jesus
     (and other Prophets) was revealed to Muhammad (from God), and these are
     retained in the Qur'an and in the ahadith of Muhammad (SAWS). The infor-
     mation there, of course, would be shocking for most Christians since
     they have deified a human being - Jesus the son of Maryam, while the
     Qur'an and ahadith of Muhammad clearly say that Jesus was nothing more
     than a human being, a Prophet of God, sent unto the children of Israel.
     As to the matter of belief, this is what Muslims believe. A non-Muslim
     is free to accept or reject the information provided above, concerning
     the concept of Wahi and the role of Jesus.

     Kalki also ignorantly suggests that the concept about God has not been
     clearly mentioned either in the Bible or in the Qur'an. He is wrong.
     The concept of God in Islam is very clearly laid down in the Qur'an
     and Sunnah, and goes beyond what Kalki said to be "Allah is Great,
     He is Most Merciful and Compassionate." Read the Qur'an from Surah
     al-Fatiha to Surah an-Naas, you will get a clear understanding about
     Allah, and the monotheistic beliefs of Muslims (as against polytheistic
     ideas concerning God in some eastern religions). Read the books of
     Sahih Sitta (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, an-Nisa'i, ibn-Majah, at-Tirmizi)
     for further references.
- Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
 
 I try _real_ hard _not_ to argue with Glen, because of lot of what he writes
 could be cosidered true with a point of view much different from mine.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:13:06 GMT

In article <BxH4z1.DxD@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>
>You have made the classical mistake with omnicience-- believing that
>knowledge = interference, or that it is active or has action associated
>with it.  I have mentioned in a previous post about this, that knowledge
>is passive.  You know that the lights will come on or go off when 
>you flip the switch, but it doesn't happen unless you actually do it.
>Because God knows what you have done, are doing, and will do, doesn't
>mean that you then didn't, aren't, or won't do the thing or make
>the choice.  If you still do not understand omnicience, let me know
>and I'll try to explain in better terms.   Omnicience has NOTHING
>to do with free will or free agency.
>

 This is a good analogy to use. From the source of this thread, let me extend
 the story with the same analogy. The builder hasn't seen the light switch
 yet, yet he knows the light switch. He knows everything that's is knowable
 about that light switch. He is omnicient about that light switch. He builds
 the switch and the lights to match the specfication. That light switch
 will never execeed the "measure of it's creation". That light switch
 has _no_ free will. It will do _exactly_ what it was created to do.


 If God knows each individual ever born, before the individual is _created_
 and he knows what each individual will do, and he creates the individual
 accourding to his knowledge, then omincience and free will are mulltually
 excluded.

 There are other (better hypothesis), where the forknowledge of God,
 of what is in a Man's heart dosn't negate the opportunity of Free Will.

 < aside from one quote from Psalms, the quotes about God's knowledge >
 < deal with what is in a man's heart (and a women's). 		      >

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:09:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




Anthony G Rose response:

>In article <lfg03dINNr7k@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>In my response to Anthony G Rose I left out a response to the following:
>>
>>>Your own prophets say that if God has a body that he is limited to time
>>>and space and thus _cannot_ be in more than one place at a time.  This is
>>>as logical as it gets.  If this is the case, then how do you explain
>>what God does when a million people pray simultaneously?  This is the
>>>logical problem with God having a body!
>>
>>I don't see the limitations, which you claim, to come with the physical body, 
>>because it can be only in one place in any one given time.

>Your arguement is not with me, but with your prophets and apostles.  They
>said it, I just repeated it.

And I explained it to you. I don't think that you read my response. Here is
the rest of my respose repeated:

"I am sure that you know about our primitive method of communication. I am sure
that you heard of the possible that that one person can communicate with many 
others who are located some distance from each other."

"I can't comprehend the power and the intelligence of God. Your problem is
that the idea of God having a physical body means to you that he is a man
like us. This is far from the truth. Jesus himself is an example that your
thinking and logic is false in this matter."

Now, what the hack are you talking about?????????

Second, are you going to respond to my last exchange of issues associated with
God having a body? If you missed it I will be glad to repost it for you.
In fact I will send it to you personally to make sure that you got it.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
 



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:29:49 GMT

In article <Bx77ty.J0q@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu
(Tim Pierce) writes:

>  Once you know that I
>find your words troublesome, and you continue to use them, you are
>insulting me with malice aforethought.

When you tell me that you want me to change the language that I speak,
my decision not to do so may be based on the fact that someone I care
a lot about wants me to speak the way I do.

Do you consider it insulting that there are people I care more about
than you?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:42:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> You have asked a legitimate question, and now you chastise people for
> answering.  If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask the
> question.

Do you consider flunking a test chastisement? Then the person who takes
the test doesn't have any responsibility for his answers? What should
I do, just give everyone 100% to humor them? Nobody forced anyone to take
this test. And the questions were not "IS there a soul?" or "IS there a
purpose of human life?" but "What IS the soul?" and "What IS the purpose
of human life?"

What IS the problem, really?

> That is, if you know the answer, then why ask?  You are assuming that your
> view is the only corect one (as everyone feels about his own views I 
> suppose), so why don't you tell US the answer instead of playing these
> little games.

In most of my responses to the tests, I did in fact include the answers.
It was tailored to each individual response. I didn't include any
answers in the one you cite because by his responses the person
indicated that he did not even accept the existence of the topics in
question! That is why I said "pupil in wrong class".

> Earlier you had posted a message saying how upset you were that no one
> was taking you seriously.  Judging from your response to this answer, I
> think I know why.  In fact, it seems to me that you are operating
> on a false premise all around.  People don't post here just for your
> amusment.  If you are just mocking us, then feel free to go elsewhere.

Well, apparently you think that we posted the test for your amusement.
If not, why such an uproar? The message i'm getting is that you're "not
amused", as if you think you should have been. I am not mocking the
people who took the test. I made some humorous remarks in some cases,
but this is not intended as insulting mockery.

It's really quite amazing how many times I hear "don't post here" or
"please go away", not only in response to my own posts, but from anyone
who is the least disturbed by what others are saying. I have never
tried to get those who disagree with me to stop speaking or to stop
posting here. What is this nonsense? Why not fight, if you know you're
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: riipinen@dxcern.cern.ch (Petri Juhani Riipinen)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:15:37 GMT

>In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>1) What is the soul?

Tell me, what coffee tastes like, then I'll tell you, what is the soul.

You can assume, that I have never tasted coffee and then start your
description from that level.

In Christ, - PJR -
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri J. Riipinen                (riipinen@dxcern.cern.ch)
Les terrases de Thoiry n.15      (riipin@vxldb1.cern.ch)
01710 Thoiry,  France            (riipin_dev@vxldb2.cern.ch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:55:53 GMT

In article <BxL15o.1Lw@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.180339.9770@b23a.b23a.ingr.com>, klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127) writes...
>
>[...]
>
>> 
>> John 9:1-3;  When the apostles asked Him who sined that this man should
>>      be born Blind, was it the man himself or the man's parents. Jesus
>>      answered and said "neighter".
>> 
>>      If the man had no oportunity to sin before he was born, would the
>>      questions have been a real problem.
>
>[...]
>
>	Jesus corrected the disciples for their erroneous presumption.
>	I don't see how we can assume a Biblical teaching from something
>	that Jesus corrected as being erroneous.

 "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God
  should be made manifest in him..."

  Jesus corrected their assumption that the man had been born blind because
  that someone had sinned. He didn't correct the assumption that the man
  could have sinned before his birth. there is a difference

  "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but ye say, We see; therfore
   you sin remaineth."
>
>Robert Weiss
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:25:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BxHnJq.7As@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>To begin with, it's worth noting that Mr. Pitts has once again failed
>to provide any evidence that Jesus supported governmentally organized
>public prayers.  Mr. Pitts has also failed to give any coherent
>reason why he, as a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus, ought to
>support government-organized prayer in the public schools.

Thanks for pointing out my error OR RATHER pointing out your desire
of not wanting prayer in public schools?  Do you pray?

Ok, as I said, Mr. Provine limited the scope of the question to
words in red (words record of Jesus) - I said and rightly say the
whole Bible is valid.  For I as, hopefully, Mr. Provine does believes
the WHOLE Bible (OT and NT) is valid and useful for doctrine and 
encouragement - I don't know how you (Mr. Bloom) believe on that.
Prayer is communication - my prayers are communication with God,
the Creator and Savior of the World.  The Bible encourages us to 
pray and there are many instances of this being done in public.
The admonition to pray is there and we are in America where, I think,
the people are to be respresented - some of us want a time for prayer
in school (call it meditation or period of silence.)

Let me ask you do the gospels or the Bible in general specifically
prohibit public school prayer?  The only correct about the purpose
of prayer given by Jesus was that we are not to pray TO BE SEEN by
men, but to be heard by God - He went ahead and told us to let our
light shine and not hide it - Jesus prayed in public, as well as,
in private.

...
>Keith

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:31:40 GMT

someone writes:
>It is amazing what nonsense can come out of someone who is 
>so biased by [anything] that they cannot filter their own illogic any longer.

I think this a very good point.
I wonder if this someone thinks that he/she is uniquely immune to
the danger that he/she recognizes in others.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Nov6.020604.670@HQ.Ileaf.COM> <1992Nov6.031134.9777@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.031134.9777@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <1992Nov6.020604.670@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
   >In article <1992Nov4.205659.23814@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >> In article <1992Nov4.165253.4006@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
   >> >In article <1992Oct30.153527.23351@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >> >    Without FAITH this is a legitmate question
   >> >    but when you ask this to people with FAITH (beleivers)
   >> >    your answer WILL be people praying for you to understand
   >> Then it doesn't much matter what the text says, does it now?
   >
   >    Not to a person, like you, who maintains that the Bible is
   >    just words
   Yes, but I'm talking about YOU. If understanding comes from prayer
   and faith, I don't see why you feel the need to talk about the
   text at all.

Perhaps prayer for understanding of the text and faith that the text
is correct.

   >		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
   >                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
   >                and adaptable 
   Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste....
   -Ekr

"Surely, every man at his best is a mere breath."  Psalm 39:5 by David

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:04:00 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov4.165656.1525@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) wrote:
> 
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >
> >So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
> >praise of intelligence.
> >                -- Bertrand Russell
> 
> Why would you expect there to be?
> Intelligence is an inherited trait.  I don't see how you can reasonably 
> take any credit or accept any praise for yours. Expecting praise for
> a characteristic you had nothing to do with is rather arrogant. 
> 
> "There is not one word in the Gospels in praise of blue eyes" is a 
> criticism of equal gravity. 

Eh? I think Russell provided a very clear statement, Jesus does
not exactly ask his followers to make intelligence choices, instead
they should rely on faith, and he even praises people that don't use their
intelligent capacities to figure out the real truth (see earlier postings
by Richard Pitt that clearly provided such evidence from the Gospels).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:23:13 GMT

In article <Bx6L11.2zJ@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu
(Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <dhalliwe.720825225@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>
>>   The example above is flawed in part by the fact that "He went to the
>>market" is actually appropriate when you know that the perpetrator is male.
>>It would be very unusual to know who went to the market without knowing
>>their gender, and using the appropriate gender can hardly be considered
>>inappropriate in this case.
>
>It certainly would.  Their gender has no more effect on the fact of
>their going to the market than their age, weight or hair color; why do
>pronouns not distinguish between these highly relevant personal traits
>as well as gender?

Who are they?  Are we suddenly talking about more than one person?

Pronouns are what they are.  Languages change because people use them
differently; I will participate in this process when I consider the
new expression to be superior to the old.  I will not participate in
this process because some group of people wants me to (however, there
are certain individuals who can cause me to do so).

Finally, do I read you correctly in believing that if I were to say
"My brother went to the market.  He bought..." you would find that
objectionable?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Sports in the Bible and other jokes
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 10:54:52 GMT

In article <29895@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>Having read the post about the devil at Scottish Power and having 
>concluded without a doubt that an excorcism is in order, I thought
>that some other light-hearted subjects might be nice on the net.
>
>Amidst the serious thought and the all too prevalent flames its good
>to remember that a merry heart has value. 
>
How about mentions of cars in the Bible? 

Old Testament:

The Lord drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden in his Fury... 

New Testament:

The Apostles came together in one Accord...

Matt Marches
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 04:55:11 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:

> : Spiritual intelligence test.
> : 
> : (Please answer each question in 25 words or less)
> : 
> : 1) What is the soul?
> 
> IMHO, it is an unsupported assertion that our consciousness is an 
> independent, immortal, supernatural essence instead of a physiological 
> phenomenon.

Question 1 grade: 50% (knows what it is but doesn't want to admit it)
> 
> : 
> : 2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> Wealth, knowledge, friends, power, fame, TV radiation, strength, 
> beauty, nature, humility, etc.  Happiness is the proper balance 
> of these and differs for each individual.
> 
Question 2 grade: 0% (doesn't know what it is and doesn't want to admit
it)

Overall grade: 25%
Try again!

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:52:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <73890@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 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.

So you would not mind if a Satanist cult priest attended the school
yard and asked interested parties to join in for an officially
sanctioned prayer, right? There's a reason I'm very sore about this,
I will soon put my son in pre-school, and I don't want anything like
this to happen...

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20439 sci.skeptic:19020 alt.censorship:8568 alt.sex:34976