HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:32:49 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
: In article <exukjb.140.716072863@exu.ericsson.se>
: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
: 
: Your exam analogy is good, except that your score is based on what you
: know.  God knows what we know and understand and will give us our
: "score" based on what we do with what we know and understand.  So a
: "100" is not out of reach of anyone.  For those of us who don't do all
: we know we should (I'm in this group), we do have the opportunity to
: repent for a better "score," but we still have to do the work.  Christ
: doesn't do it for me, but makes it possible for me to try again.

I assume that due to our sinful nature no one can score a 100%
on their own merits.  What is the nature of the material being t
ested?  Can an atheist score a 90 overall while a Christian scores 
a 70?  Will God give the Christian a 100 anyways just because he 
is more credulous than than atheist?  Do only 100s get into heaven?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:46:15 GMT

In article <ksand-070992114451@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.104857.27275@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>> 	Kent, olet taysimittainen kusipaa. Eipa sen enempaa.
>
>As this is an international forum where we use English as the main
>language, here's the translation of the very illuminated response from 
>Antti:
>
>"Kent, you are a full sized shit-head. Nothing else."
>
>I really enjoy having logical discussions with JWs.
>
>Kent
>
  Under the topic of JW humor, somehow it would seem aprapo, that antti
  would slip in and try to say something that he has been hidding
  for a long time.  [[ Warning, Warning.]] The things that Siivonen says
  and does should not be taken as representaive of the ideals that the
  JW try to promote within their group. Think of him as a psudo-JW.
  Having the appearence of sanctity, but denying the power therein.

 It may be humorous to poke fun at the poor boy, but he seems to know
 almost as much about Christainity as he does about the JW movement.
 Ie only from a distance. One can only suppose that he know as little
 about science and biology as he does about religon or religous belief.


 Please don't think of this boy as representive of either Christanity or
 JWitness. You would be doing either belief system a grave injustice.


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:47:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep9.235653.4639@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>If God created the universe, who created God?
> 
> 
> This question seems to pop up frequently. Here goes ...
> 
> The Bible makes claims that point toward the transcendence of God, that  
> he exists in dimensions apart from our experience. One of those claims is
> of his existence "prior to" or "apart from" the existence of the universe. 

[...explanation of God's transcendence deleted...]
             
I guess the point of this question is that it causes us to recognize that
"God" is not really any kind of answer to mystery. The universe is in no
way more understandable with God's existence assumed. We still have no
ultimate answers. "Who created God?" "No one - he is transcendent of time,
has no beginning, etc."  "Why is God there, then?" "Well, he just IS."
"Yeah, but WHY?"   "Errr...."

> The Christian concept of God includes the idea of "self-existence", that the
> very power of being rests in him. 

Of course, we all know the REAL answer to the question "who created God?" :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: I am that I am
	<BuKzy5.n3C@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <BuL4Kv.vB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:51:11 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<YHWH actually means something like "He who creates" ...

One more point I forgot to make. The whole point here is that this ONE GOD
is the God who can not be named, ie, transcendent of name. If your God can be
named, has a name, then your God is not THE ONE GOD. THE ONE GOD is the God
who can not be named, other than "I am that I am". To apply a name to this
God ruins the beauty of the metaphor and confuses the myth.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 07:12:14 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<2667@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:
>> THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
>> A LOVING GOD.
>
>This is one of the most asked and debated religious questions of all
>times.
>
>From a Christian perspective, based on the Bible (as I read it of course),
>there is a tension here.  And this tension is maintained throughout the
>scriptures.  The tension is that of the complex nature of God.  From a 
>Biblical basis, yes, God is loving.  

Pardon me, but could you provide some biblical evidence of this "loving"
aspect of the Christian god.

>                                     But that does not say enough.  That is
>simply one aspect of God.  The Bible also portrays God as the just judge.

He's the most powrful judge.  Does that make him the most "just"?

>The God of the Bible is not portrayed as a flat, single dimensional thing
>called love.  God is portrayed as multi dimensional (i.e. having many
>attributes -- love, mercy, justice, righteousness, creativity, etc.).

Jealousy, rage, forgetfullness, lust, homocidal tendencies, deceptiveness,
etc.

...

>My personal belief on the subject of SALVATION/DAMNATION is that they are
>not incompatible with a loving God.  The just aspects of God call for
>judgment of the sins of man.  The loving aspects of God offer the solution
>to the demanded judgment.  According to the Bible the only solution offered
>is Jesus Christ, who bore the judgment of God by dying on the cross, in
>order that the judgment requirements of God might be fully met.  It is
>in Jesus Christ that salvation and damnation meet.  For Christ is the
>one who took the damnation and judgment and God, and who also offers
>salvation.

But, Jesus is god.  And Jesus isn't dead, is he?  If he is god and he
didn't die, then what did he sacrifice?  Sounds like the old cosmic shell
game to me - "Let's see, I'll set up this situation where my 'creations'
cannot possibly live up to my expectations.  Then I'll kill them for it,
or at the least punish them a lot.  But, just to keep them interested in
me, I'll send 'part of me' down there to 'die' so that I'll be satisfied
for these mortals sinning.  If they fall for all this then I won't kill
them. <maniacal laughter fades in the background>"

>Whoever loves money never has money enough;
>   Whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.
>      This too is meaningless.
>Eccl. 5:10

"Whoever loves their god is never satisfied until they can 
 make sure that *everyone* loves their god, or at least obeys it,
 even if it kills them."

 GRS.  1:1
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Grace in non-Christian Religions?
Organization: Rock stead easy, steady rock easy
	<1992Sep6.192210.17114@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:36:27 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
Without exception Christianity is the only "religion" which recognizes that
man, of himself, cannot please God or be reunited with Him.  I know you
know this, but it is still the most amazing fact about Christianity and one
that makes it truly unique.

kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
This is not correct. The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of
the Lord, no one can approach Him or please Him.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
Let me clarify:
God cannot look on less than perfection.  His mercy towards those who have
acepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is that of providing the
ultimate sacrifice so that we no longer require mercy (are without sin)
through Jesus.
Many people are hoping to be "good enough" so that God's "mercy" fills in the
rest.  What they fail to realize is that God's mercy (in whatever form) must
also satisfy His will (the law -- perfection -- w/out sin).  When God judges
the believer, He judges Jesus Christ, who was perfect!  The believer will be
found pure and righteous in spite of his/her independent deeds and thoughts.
This is grace... it is not merely mercy, which must compromise!  God is above
compromising His standard -- THE standard -- so He fulfilled it with one last
sacrifice for all time, so that whoever places their trust in Jesus will
obtain eternal life!
As we have seen, this is one of the simplest yet hardest things to do.

---
What? Riding coat tails is hard, yeah right. Here is John at the gates of
Heaven:

Jah: And why should I let YOU in to Heaven, you who do not partake of reggae?
John: Because, ah, um, ah, because, um, one second, let me check my cheat
  sheet, oh yeah, now I got it, because I believe in Jesus?
Jah: Oh, jolly good, very good credentials, please come right in, oh
  believer in He whom we call Yeshua. Now do you prefer ska or rock steady? Or
  perhaps something more modern, like world beat? (Careful John, these are
  all trick questions)

Yeah, right, in your dreams. This coat tails stuff only works in Hollywood,
where it's not who you know, it's who you do. Ya betta get to work on that
resume John. I wouldn't count on any mercy from the belief of Jesus to fill
in any voids, as you yourself say.
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Bothering With Evolution (was something else)
Summary: Why not?
Keywords: evolution, process, results, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey (was Glassboro State College)
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog likes hunting for more than just the food.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:16:55 GMT


Graham Matthews writes:

> [S]cience espouses evolution. You may consider that evolution as an
> explanation of God's work, but in fact accepting evolution like this raises
> more questions that it answers. eg: why did god bother with evolution?

This presupposes that the _results_ are more important than the _process_.

When you go to the symphony, they play music for a while, and then end in
silence.  Does one ask "If all they wanted at the end was silence, why did
they bother playing Beethoven's Ninth as a prelude?"

Have you ever taken a walk for no purpose, but just to walk about?  You end
up where you started -- if all you wanted was to be at home, why did you
bother walking about?

God may be interested in more than just the Final State of the Universe; maybe
he is interested in the playing of the Divine Comedy, not just looking at the
curtain after the play is over.  The dinosaurs all died at the end of the
First Act, but that doesn't mean you can write them out of the play and not
damage the whole.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"I've noticed that a lot of people in this group engage in the dubious
 practice of figuring out what God was thinking." -- Joel Laramee
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:19:09 GMT

In article <4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>In the Old Testament one can find some passages which refer to entities with
>these attributes. In addition one finds references to many gods. God (with a
>capital G) in the English translations, and Lord (with a capital L) will
>sometimes be used to translate the Hebrew word Yahweh and sometimes used to
>translate the Hebrew Elohim (the latter being a plural).
I don't know Hebrew, so I can't speak for the status of Elohim, but
in English translation, when the text reads YHWH, it is almost
invariably translated LORD. God almost invariable means "Elohim" and
"Lord" Adonai.
With the exception of LORD, these are pretty good translations.
YHWH actually means something like "He who creates"
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:43:31 GMT

In article <67872@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep8.195107.8340@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}|In article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}|}In article <1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}|}>
}|}>Bad news.  The end of the world came and went.  NONE of you are worthy!
}|}
}|}Regardless of whether anyone of us is worthy or not, we would all know it, as
}|}Jesus described in the following passage:
}|}...
}|}   Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in
}|}      the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
}|...
}|And you MISSED it!!!!
}
}No.  You didn't read verse 27 very close or so it seems.
}
}    Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east IS VISIBLE even in
}       the west, SO WILL BE the coming of the Son of Man.
}
}It will be visible, just as the lightning is.

To a blind man, though something is visible it will not be seen.  And there
appear to be many blind to THE WAY here - including you, apparently.

Food for thought:  Notice how there are many claims made about how clear
the "word of god" is, yet there are still those who do not see the same
thing?  What makes you think that this is not just another example of
selective blindness, refusing to see what you don't want to?


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:25:11 GMT


I am posting this request for:

Laura Marwick
Department of Sociology
Brigham Young University
800 SWKT
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 378-3392

Laura is doing her graduate research on disaffiliation from Mormonism 
and conversion to Evangelical Christianity.  If you would like to 
participate in this research and tell your story of how you were Born 
Again, please contact Laura at the address or phone number above.  
You do not have to give your name if you do not wish to.


-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:48:59 GMT

>In any case, the last thing I think this country needs is "left/liberal"
>counter-storm-troopers doing battle with the goons of the "Christian"
>right.

We have David Duke all set to lead the 'brown shirts'...who's going to lead
the 'communists'.  Pre-Nazi Germany anyone?

This isn't far from what we're seeing in some places...

And as for politics vs. religion, I have two sets of standards.  One for my
own life, governed by my religion, the other for politics goverened by my
desire for freedom.  The two shouldn't be mixed.  To try to enforce my
religious views on someone simply opens the way for them to force theirs
(or whatever defines their morals/ethics) on me.  No thanks.

Those who desire freedom should refuse to impose levels of restriction they 
wouldn't want imposed on themselves...in other words, if you don't want
things forced on you, don't force them on anyone else.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason     
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:06:05 GMT

kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
: Everyone serves someone. God serves His devotees by reciprocating with
: them in loving relationships. God also serves those who don't like Him:
: even atheists depend on God to maintain the universal stability so that
: they can pursue their impossible dream of independence from Him.
: Atheists also serve others, if only to earn a living.
: Nobody anywhere in existence is exempt from servitude. Service is the
: eternal function of all living beings.

Everyone serves something, at the very least their lungs and stomach,
therefore the Christian God exists.  Hmmm.  How could we *ever* refute
such *compelling* logic? ;-)
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: What is 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:39:36 GMT

What is 'Kingdom of Heaven' mentioned in the Bible?  Is it the same
as Heaven?  Does 'enter the Kingdom of Heaven' means 'go to Heaven
after you die'?

Here is an exerpt from Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible.

	"The expression 'kingdom of heaven' (lit. 'of the heavens'),
	 one that is peculiar to Matthew, refers to the rule of the
	 heavens, i.e. the rule of the God of heaven over the earth
	 (cp. Dan. 2:44; 4:25,32).  The kingdom of heaven is similar
	 in many respects to the kingdom of God and is often used
	 synonymously with it, though emphasizing certain features
	 of divine government.  When contrasted with the universal
	 kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven includes only men on
	 earth, excluding angels and other creatures.  The kingdom
	 of heaven is the earthly sphere of profession as shown by
	 the inclusion of those designated as wheat and tares, the
	 latter of which are cast out of the kingdom (Mt. 13:41),
	 and is compared to a net containing both the god and bad
	 fish which are later separated (Mt. 13:47) ..."
 	           - Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, p. 972 footnote 4

As Scofield stated, the Kingdom of the Heavens refers to the rule of
the heavens ON EARTH.  It is an earthly sphere where God's rule is
acknowledged.  To enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens means to
accept God as your Lord in your life.  It means to repent the way of
life that is separated from God.  It means to live a life that is
filled with Christ, and have Him as the sphere in which we live, move,
and have our beings.  It has nothing to do with "after you die, you will
go to Heaven".

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: What's the catch? What's the fine print? [was: Sean gets his reply]
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:55:13 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep6.194140.18212@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> In article <1992Sep6.114904.7362@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>I would be very interested to look more closely into Eastern Orthodox
>>Christianity. What do you recommend?  
>>
>>p.s. John M, if you're reading this, does this count as an interest in
>>Christianity, or does only Middle-American Protestantism deserve that name?
>>I'm genuinely curious...
> 
> Surely!  Whatever turns your crank man...
> 
> You can chant with spoons up your nose while sitting in a bathtub full of
> jello for all I care -- just accept Jesus back into your heart and life
> PLEASE!  Don't do it for me -- DO IT FOR YOU!
> 
> John M.

What _specifically_ does one have to do to accept Jesus into one's heart and
life? Does it matter if one is not entirely convinced, say, that the
Resurrection really happened?  Does it matter if one rejects Paul's 
claims to apostleship, or rejects Biblical inerrancy? What if one inclines
towards a more mystical understanding of Christianity? Or even towards
a more Gnostic understanding of Christianity? 

That is to say - what _exactly_ does one have to do? How does one know that
Jesus has accepted the invitation?  I am afraid I am neither prepared nor
able to become a fanatical ideologue any more...is doubt allowed? Is one
allowed to pursue one's own understanding of the Gospel message? Even if
it contradicts Paul?  

I don't like being at odds with Christianity...I would like to become
reconciled with it somehow...however, I am not sure that this is possible...
However, Eckhart, my favourite Christian theologian, was comfortable in
the orthodox hierarchy...who knows? :)

Anyhow, hope you can help. I'm sure some other people will be interested to
see the answers to these questions so I'm posting instead of e-mailing.


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:35:18 GMT
 <1992Sep7.104857.27275@cs.joensuu.fi> 
 <ksand-070992114451@wintermute.apple.com> 
 <1992Sep8.004615.7389@infonode.ingr.com> 
 <1992Sep8.151942.11299@cs.joensuu.fi> 
 <ksand-080992193247@wintermute.apple.com> 
 <1992Sep9.144644.11243@cs.joensuu.fi> <ksand-100992120204@wintermute.apple.com> <1992Sep11.114545.21803@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	Nevertheless, you are hopelessly stubborn, Kent. 

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc