HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Summary: Why does it matter?
Keywords: soul, spirit, mind, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Disclaimer: We demand that Brandy the WonderDog may or may not have a soul.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:42:21 GMT


Kalki Somebody (or maybe it's Somebody Kalki) asks:

> 1) What is the soul?

I have a humorous answer and a real answer:

 a) "Soul, n.  A spiritual entity concerning which there hath been brave
    disputation." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_  (There is a
    lot more of the definition, and it's really funny, but I won't type it
    all in.)

 b) Some people think that what makes you `you' is a non-physical entity
    that animates your body; I can't see that this is any different than
    your mind.  Others claim that this is a way of understanding the world,
    but that there isn't actually a spiritual entity.  (Consider the letters
    on your screen: are they a bunch of dots, or are they English words?  To
    the terminal, they are just a bunch of dots; you understand them as words.
    But the terminal didn't write any words, it just put up a bunch of dots.)

    My own answer is this: "By `soul', I mean whatever it is that makes me
    a unique individual.  It may or may not have independent existence.  It
    makes for some interesting philosophical discussions, but beyond that
    the question seems to me utterly pointless."


> 2) What is the purpose of human life?

To worship and glorify God.

[ You know, "One God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of
  all that is, seen and unseen."  (For further details, see the Nicene Creed,
  which can be found in numerous places.  The one I have here is an Episcopal
  _Book of Common Prayer_, with the Creed on page 358.  If you haven't a copy
  on hand, you can examine one free at your local Episcopal church, which
  should be listed in the Yellow Pages near where you live.) ]


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Philosophy, n.  A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."
                                  -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:06:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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.
>> 
>> "Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto
>>  the Father but by me.'"  (John 14:6)
> 
>Or maximize your chances, and believe in all religions, that would
>not hurt, either.

Kent,

	That doesn't seem to be too practical.

	I find too much contradiction in the idea of a believing 
polytheist/henotheist/monotheist seeking 
salvation/enlightenment/cosmic consciousness by 
works/grace/faith/overcoming one's desires and endlessly 
reincarnating/going to heaven/becoming one with the universe
et al.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Subject: lost messages
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: talk
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:42:38 EST

If anyone sent me mail in the last week of October and I haven't yet
replied, please resend.  I somehow lost a week's worth of packets.

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Mormonism
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:21:26 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <adyq028t29=X01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>> If you will admit that God THE FATHER does NOT have a body of
>>> flesh and bones, we can then move into a discussion of the
>>> resurrection.  I would like to discuss that, but not until we
>>> draw a conclusion here.  Your question is changing the subject. 
>>> Do you admit that God the father does not have a body of flesh
>>> and bones?
>>[End Tony]
>>
>>I have not yet seen any conclusive evidence that God the Father
>>does not have a body of flesh and bones.  I have only seen varing
>>interpretations of scripture, each of which appears to be valid
>>depending in the point of view taken.
> 
> How do you interprete  Hosea 11:9? (this one is right)   ;-)

That God is not subject to the same human weaknesses and failings
that we (humans) are subject to.  That is how I interprete it
from the context of the surrounding verses.

>>[Begin Jason]
>>> Okay, so suppose God is bond to a certain space and time. 
>>> Answer my question again:  What evidence do you have that does
>>> not exist in a dimemsion, or realm higher than our concept of
>>> 3 dimensional space and time?  How does this limit him to doing
>>> only one thing at a time?  Can't you walk and chew gum at the same
>>> time?
>>[End Jason]
>>[Begin Tony]
>>> Yeah, but I can't listen to millions of people at the same time
>>> I am having eternal sex with my wives.  There is a difference in
>>> the type of things you can do at the same time.
>>[End Tony]
>>
>>And just because you can't do it, what what evidence to you have
>>that God can't? I'll bet that you also can't part the Red Sea. 
>>What's your point?
> 
> I certainly can't.  But I do believe that you are getting a little
> carried away with this dimension thing.  The reason that I say this is
> that you are using this example to make a point, but it is not what you
> believe to be true.  

Now you are telling me what *I* believe?  How arrogant of you.
I most certainly *do* believe that God exists/resides in a
dimension/realm that is higher than the one we currently exist
in, and that is his existence presently beyond our comprehension. 
But at some point we will probably be able to comprehend it.

> We can suppose all we want, the ball is not in my court to prove that
> God _doesn't_ exist in a differenc dimension.  We have no reason to
> believe that way, therefore, the ball is in your court to prove that he
> does.

I beleive that God exists in a Higher dimension than our current
comprehension can allow for.  Since this kind of existence can
currently neither be proved nor disproved, the point is moot.  I
accept it on faith -- just as I accept the existence of God on
faith.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:02:56 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

All this is pure speculation. Where did you get this information? I would 
like to know why Christian history was being kept in the Temple. Give me the
titles and authors so I may verify what you say.
-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jungian Archetypes
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:36:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1doprhINN54f@morrow.stanford.edu>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU
(Bruce Salem) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov9.234008.16992@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >(Kent Sandvik) writes in reply to Simon Clippingdale's report
> >of the Dawkin's lecture:
> >>Thus, there is a core of 'something', ideas that are common for our
> >>race, based on cultural traditions, biology, our ancestory history
> >>and ultimately our genes and how our brain works.
> >
> >One of the interesting point Jung makes is that some archetypes
> >are *not* based on cultural traditions, in fact transcending
> >them.
> 
> 	Read the rest of the items in the sentence, they make the
> qualification you seek. In fact they may "trancend" the religious
> impulse. Now that word "trancendance" is but a prejudice about
> something we can't know. Justify that something trancends our world
> except in out minds only.

I agree, even if we have the concept that something 'transcends'
our known views, it does not automatically imply something divine.
This is the same case as with gravity, we don't know really how 
gravity works, but to state it as something transcendental just 
because we can't touch it is not a valid conclusion.

Back to the concept of archetypes, if we either could communicate
with other animals, or hopefully with alien beings, one of the
first interesting observations would be to find out if these thinking
beings have the same reference models, or totally different ones. If
they differ quite dramatically concerning their views of let us say
collaboration, the meaning of life, or social structures, it would clearly
imply that our own views are modelled due to our cultural, social
and genetic background as former hominid beings.

Actually we have plenty of evidence that quite a lot is inherited from
our friends the apes concerning social structures and behavior. If you
don't believe this, get a child and see all this in action!

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20684 talk.origins:13838 alt.atheism:20866
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 92 10:26:42 MST
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: BYU

In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>1) What is the soul?

The body inhabited by a spirit born of our Heavenly Father.

>2) What is the purpose of human life?

To become perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.

Enjoy.
_____________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|The Random Acts of Kindness will Continue until Morale Deteriorates|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20790 talk.origins:13926 alt.atheism:20978
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jungian Archetypes
Date: 10 Nov 1992 17:00:33 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov9.234008.16992@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>(Kent Sandvik) writes in reply to Simon Clippingdale's report
>of the Dawkin's lecture:
>
>>I've started to think about similar concepts. Campbell showed elegantly
>>how we have many core myths in use in various world religions, and
>>Jung pointed out the core archetypes that are present in dreams.
>>
>>Thus, there is a core of 'something', ideas that are common for our
>>race, based on cultural traditions, biology, our ancestory history
>>and ultimately our genes and how our brain works.
>
>One of the interesting point Jung makes is that some archetypes
>are *not* based on cultural traditions, in fact transcending
>them.

	Read the rest of the items in the sentence, they make the
qualification you seek. In fact they may "trancend" the religious
impulse. Now that word "trancendance" is but a prejudice about
something we can't know. Justify that something trancends our world
except in out minds only.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 06 Nov 92 04:34:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


Both sides are spinning their wheels in the mud on this one.  As long
as you point to your respective holy books for authority, this will
continue.

Each holy book calls the other holy book a liar.  Unless one of the two
sides can come up with independent verification for its arguments, this
is a total stalemate.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:04:12 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



                           THE "MARK OF THE BEA$T"

               ALL Christians are PROHIBITED by Revelation 14:9-11 from 
          cooperating with the "MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T" bar-code, OCR-
          number, and magnetic-strip scanning systems, (as found in 
          local libraries, supermarkets, retail establishments, etc.), 
          which also THREATEN to SUBVERT Individual Privacy and 
          Freedom. 

               The scanners can serve THE SAME CRIMINAL PURPOSE as the 
          TV cameras in the book "1984"! 

               The UPC bar-codes are probably the most blatant form of 
          the "MARK OF THE BEA$T" so far, with the "NUMBER OF THE 
          BEA$T", 666, ALREADY CODED INTO THEM.  Each of the so-called 
          "guard patterns", pairs of thin lines spaced close together 
          at the beginning, middle, and end of each full-length UPC 
          bar-code, is IDENTICAL to one of the two codes for a 6. 

               WARN YOUR FRIENDS!


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20422 alt.atheism:20613
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:29:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov5.023246.8614@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	The worthlessness of material wealth and why one must give it
>all away.

	Worthless? Don't you know that money can be used to buy your soul or 
the soul of a loved one from the torture of Hell!
	It's called the selling of indulgence.

	During my conformation classes [ lutheran confirmation ], when we 
were discussing the sale of indulgences in the Catholic church, and how much 
they believed one had to pay for a particular crime, So much for blasphemy, 
so much for unfaithfullness, etc. I asked one question, maybe some 
Catholic can answer it for me:
 	How much would it cost to get your soul out of hell, if you raped 
the Pope?
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:51:30 GMT
Organization: Mu-Mu Land, all bound for Mu-Mu Land

In article <1992Nov11.205728.2285@cnsvax.uwec.edu> 
mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God

Well, you know what they say: The Lord works in mysterious ways. Nyuk, nyuk,
nyuk.

>               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
>          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
>          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 

Please, you know the average intelligence level. Well scientifically,
statistics tell us that half the people are dumber than that!

>               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
>          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 

Luke14:26?

>               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
>          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
>          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
>          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
>          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 

This is easily explained. "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. The
actual Hebrew commandment translates into "You shall not murder". You see
killing, (like smashing babies heads against rocks for pleasure for example),
is all part of the game plan, if you know what I mean.

>               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
>          same thing?! 

Exactly! It's either about fishmONGERing or aluminum siding mONGERing. But
not both! OR IS IT?

>               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
>          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 

If you're interested, the name is Jehovah-1.

>          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
>          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
>          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
>          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
>          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 

Cool huh? It's hard to imagine it happening, but apparently it did.

>               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
>          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
>          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
>          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
>          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
>          VERSIONS! ] 

Well, yeah, if Elizabethan English is good enough for Jesus, it's good
enough for me!

>               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
>          Marc Dem, 1974, Bantam Books, Inc.. 
>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

ExcUSE me while I score some `frop. d-G d-G d-G
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:15:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <73791@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Have you ever noticed I don't invoke PR's name, but I do invoke that of 
> the Lord Jesus the Christ, the God man - Jesus of Nazareth, who I preach 
> as Lord and I His servant.  Note I am replying to your (Mr. Harvey's) 
> comment on my lack of thinking and so my lack of testing what I hear - I 
> haven't commented on PR's views nor is this a commentary on them or him.

Richard, here's the issue, as you know both JWs and Mormons as well
as Islam acknowledges Jesus as a special person. So you would not mind
if your children had a prayer session lead by a Mormon if you lived
in Utah, right?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If a Tree Falls, Is It Due to Gravity
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Someone (attributions FUBAR) writes:

>Sometimes, when you're not measuring it, gravity doesn't
>work.

Yeah.  By the way, behind you there's a little green goblin sticking its tongue
out at you.  He's been there all your life, but he just disappears whenever 
you look.  

Jeez.  Hope you got padded walls.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov11.012018.3204@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
|> 
|> Wait a minute, you have not answered ALL of the questions.  You seem
|> to have difficulties finding all the contradicions, so I will list
|> the contradictory answers I see impossible to SIMULTANEOUSLY resolve.
|> 
|> Q1:  Mathew 26:14-15, 27:3-8 clearly says Judas returned ALL
|>      the money to the priests.
I understand how one can get that, but I think it takes some inference
as opposed to being clearly stated. It seems to clear to say that Judas
showed up with all the money. However, the priests did not want to take 
it back. The verse which describes the throwing of the money does not
say that he threw it all, that has to be inferred.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that he bought some land with
|>      (at least some) of the money.
|> 
|> Q2:  Mathew 27:7 clearly says the priests bought it.
The details of the actual transaction are not given.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that Judas bought it.  
Again, the details of the actual transaction are not discussed.
|> 
|> Q3:  Mathew 27:5 clearly says he hung himself.
Agreed.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 says he fell and his abdomen burst open.  
Agreed.
|> 
|> Q4:  Acts 1:19 clearly says the potters field.  That is why
|>      it is named the field of blood. 
|> 
|>      Mathew does not give a location, but it probaly wasn't the
|>      potters field, becasue it is called that because the land
|>      was bought with tainted money.  (This is the weakest of the
|>      contradictions, alone it really doesn't matter very much.)
|> 
|> Q5:  Acts 1:19 cleary says because Judas dies there. 
I see mention in v 18 of falling headlong and of bursting open and of
intestines falling out. Not a pretty sight. However, the condition
before this activity is not stated, nor is the condition after
stated. Death is a likely inference for the after condition, although
not guaranteed.
|> 
|>      Mathew 27:6-8 clearly says because the priests used tainted
|>      money to purchase the plot.
|> 
|> The only answer I can give to it is that Acts 1:18-19 is reporting
|> the local gossip, and thus is not completely factual.  That seems
|> to be the best answer for this.
I could accept this, it wouldn't be an impossible inference.
It also seems clear that the exact circumstances of Judas demise were
not clear.
-- 
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