HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:27:24 GMT


In article <fXJd3nb@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan8.190917.15570@ra.royalroads.ca> 
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> 
|> >God loves, Satan kills.
|> 
|> I see. A bit of that Persian dualism eh? Say, have you read Luke14:26 by
|> any chance?

Luke 14:25 - 30 states:
"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.  And
anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
   Suppose one of you wants to build a tower.  Will he not first sit down and
estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?  For if he lays
the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule
him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

Okay, I've read Luke 14:26 and the verses around it to understand the context of
what Jesus is saying.  This section of the Bible defines the cost of being a
disciple of Jesus Christ.  To be a disciple of Jesus Christ, one must love Jesus
more than his own father and mother, wife and children and even oneself.  He 
contrasts this love in the extreme by saying that love for Christ must be so much
greater than the love for immediate family that it would be the same as comparing
love to hate.
   In the latter verses pertaining to foundation, Jesus states in hyperbole that
he wants only commited believers and not those who would only lay down a
foundation of worship only to abandon it later.  That is what He is referring to
when He talks about estimating the cost of a building.  
   Jesus was making these points to outline the cost of discipleship.  Because
there were so many people of whom some were just casual camp followers, Jesus
wanted only those who were truly committed to being his followers.  He didn't
want crowd-pleasers in his following.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:57:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec31061856@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-301292172352@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >As you see we had a fully logical construct, but then someone
>    >might ask what is SchlackerDunkGestalt. By which I answer, that's
>    >not relevant in order to show that we had a logical statement!
> 
>    You're catching on, except that we are not talking about "logical
> statements" but about the logical validity of arguments. An argument
> about SchlockerDunkGestalt may indeed be verifiably logically valid
> although the terms involved make no sense to us. Your trouble seems to
> be that you have some halfbaked ideas about "logical statements" and the
> like, and a vague conception of the meaning of "logic" and "logical
> validity", that do not in fact accord with the standard and pretty
> well-defined sense of logical terms. Gregg Skinner, on the other hands,
> invokes these terms in their standard sense. So I suggest you either
> learn about a bit about logic or else simply drop this invocation of
> "logic" in your criticism of Christianity.

I must admit, I made a mistake, my statement earlier wasn't logically
valid, the one about SchlockerDunkGestalt. Sorry about that. I wonder
why nobody catched the most obvious logical error I made?

I hope that opened a couple of eyes, one would hope... In other words
my earlier statement was actually a logical bomb :-).

For more relevant information, read Russell's "Problems of Philosophy",
that should have a fairly good insight into these issues.

My concern could be stated in one single sentence, as long as we
don't know what we are stating, we can't draw conclusions based
on such premises. Trash is trash, however you turn it upside down.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:10:16 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology


[I don't have access to the alt.pagan group - forward as believed worthwhile.]

In article <C06zIA.HB5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
|You have a rather limited definition of Christianity.  There are several 

Christianity is a limited system.  Jesus (THE CHRIST IN HUMAN FLESH)
told us that narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few
find it, but broad is the way that leads to destruction.  Jesus said
he was the way and no one comes to the Father, but by Himself.

|Christian denominations which do not require that people believe in the 
|Trinity.
|There are several which do not require that people believe that Jesus was God.

These are almost one and the same.

|There are even several which do not require one to take any of this stuff 
|literally.  I am a Witch.  I am also a Christian.  For me, Jesus was an

What does being a Christian mean to you?  Why do you want to be called
a Christian?

|important teacher, who expressed the Mystery which I call Christhood.  However,

Jesus was THE Christ come in the flesh.  He was not A Christ or just
one who reached Christhood.

|all people, as children of the Divine, can express Christhood.  The Christ is
|not an entity, per se, but a possibility of awareness.  For me, the Christ is

Jesus THE Christ (which is really what the name Jesus Christ denotes, since
the term Christ is a title) alone has the keys to eternal life.  He lived
and died and rose from the dead ONCE AND FOR ALL.  Jesus was a historical
person and he told us that people REFUSE to come to Himself and have
eternal life.

|the dying/resurrected God I call on when I feel in need of personal 
|ressurection.  This does not conflict with my being a Witch.  Granted, there
|are resurrection metaphors in Wicca as well as Christianity, but it is the
|Christian one which I connect to when I feel most lost.
|
|                      --Br'anArthur

Is Wicca not more of a polytheisic or maybe a God is all type of
religion?  Christianity is that God is One and that He is the Creator
of all - he does not dwell in things, but he made them.  He determines
the times and boundaries for man's activities.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Jihad in Islam (was Re:Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:48:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.130329.28120@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>Jihad means *STRUGGLE* in arabic.
>Jihad consists in exerting oneself to the utmost in order to personally 
>follow the teachings of Islam. A Muslim therefore expends all the powers of 
>body and soul, his wealth, possessions and even life in the fight against the 
>evil forces of the world in order that injustice, oppression and contumacy are
>annihilated and God's just order is established.
>
>When Europeans/Westerners  hear someone talking about a holy war we
>automatically connect it whith our own as the crusaders, conquistadors etc.
>But the holy war in Islam is totally different.
>
>So what is Jihad as a holy war?
>
>The pen is always stonger than the sword, but when nobody is interested in
>what you are saying or writing then you have only the sword left.
>But the question is when can you say that you are fighting in a holy war?
>
>[...]
>Jihad as a holy war is permitted in selfdefense as you can read above.

Ok, do you agree then that Salmon Rushdie deserves the death sentence ?
Who decides on what is evil and what is good ?  Also, please note that
you should say "as revealed" instead of "God says."

>In an Islamic state, it is the Caliph who orders jihad when certain
>circumstances prevail.

How do you distinguish the political motives of this person ?  Do religion
and politics mix freely in Islam ?

What bothers me most about Islam is the loss of the previous religious
philosophies of the middle east from around 4000 years ago (Ex., Babylon, 
Egypt).  Is there continuity from that era.  I would be interested in
knowing whether Islam incorporates any of the ideas from ages prior to the
Islamic era.
Date: Thursday, 7 January 1993 22:38:25 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1ifq5lINNiuf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)  wrote:
# In a previous article, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) says:
# >In article <1993Jan6.183438.24890@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
# >>:                          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
# >>:    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
# >>: and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
# >>: and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
# >>: of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
# >>: and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
# >>: Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
# >>: evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
# >>
# >>This is my favorite!  If you're rebellious in any way you are condemned as
# >>a drunk and a wastrel!  Can't you be rebellious without being a drunk?
# >>I was a rebellious kid (and still am :) ) but I didn't get loaded in
# >>1st grade.
# >>
# >>But it's in the bible so it must be true.
# >
# >I think you are looking at the passage in the wrong way.  The Torah was
# >written in Hebrew so it is not written in the same style we Americans write
# >in.  This seems to describe what kind of son would be rebellious and worthy
# >of death.

# 	Why should ANY kid, even one that is drunken and "wastrel" !
# 
# 	The DEATH sentence for KIDS ! For ANY reason ? Without a TRIAL !
# 
# 	THAT is barbaric !

  Huh?  The 'child' in question had to be a grown man.  Taking
  ANY legislation out of context can be a hoot; if you don't
  believe it, crack open any book of Revised Statutes and read
  a single paragraph.

  (I was taught that this particular passage is in effect a dead
  letter since the conditions attached are almost impossible to
  satisfy.  My teacher claimed that there were no executions
  under this one in the entire recorded history of the Jews.)

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25921 alt.atheism:25752
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:01:23 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:

>sorry, yes, i am embarrassed by the poor expression.
>i see Pat Robertson only rarely and yesterday was one of
>those days and i am very worried about what's going
>to happen in the next few years. the death of the country
>itself seems within the realm of possibilty. something
>at least as bad as the 60s.

Well the death of the country it may very well be, but it won't be
due to Pat Robertson.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9: 12
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:57:06 GMT


God is not to blame for all the evils of this world.  Man was given dominion over
the Earth, to use and abuse and we saw fit.  This is called free will.  And by
the same power of that free will, we can choose to follow God's ways or not.  
Simple as that.  We cannot take credit for the good things that we do because it
is God who gave us our talents with which to use and abuse.  He gives us the
capability to do good works.  Again, it is by our free will that we choose how to
use our talents.
    And why bring God into the picture, well, he's the one who drew the picture
in the first place.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : )
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:05:31 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C0KBn6.5rz@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.211847.28021@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>
>>No, you have been asked not to preach on alt.atheism, not quite the same
>>thing.  Intelligent discourse is welcome, unsupported assertions are not.
>
>Except, of course, when the unsupported assertions are made by atheists.

Of what course?  Are you prepared to support this one?

I'd say it depends on what it means for an assertion to be welcome.
Everyone, theist or atheist, can be taken to task to support any
assertion of his.  The difference is that an assertion made by an
atheist is more likely to match what the alt.atheism readers think
anyway, so there'll be no reason for them to exercise their right to
demand that it be backed up.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.19
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:13:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <2Z8wwB1w165w@kalki33.uucp> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
(sanskrit deleted)
>                              TRANSLATION
>
>	The blowing of these different conchshells became uproarious.
>Vibrating both in the sky and on the earth, it shattered the hearts of
>the sons of Dhrtarastra.
>
>  
>                                PURPORT
>
>	When Bhisma and the others on the side of Duryodhana blew their
>respective conchshells, there was no heart-breaking on the part of the
>Pandavas.

Those Pandavas are such a stiff-necked bunch!

>Such occurrences are not mentioned, but in this particular
>verse it is mentioned that the hearts of the sons of Dhrtarastra were
>shattered by the sounds vibrated by the Pandavas' party.

I've been to parties like this.  Lots of fun, until
the neighbors complain.

>This is due to
>the Pandavas and their confidence in Lord Krsna. One who takes shelter
>of the Supreme Lord has nothing to fear, even in the midst of the
>greatest calamity.

Does this mean that bad things won't happen to me if I take
shelter in the S.L., or that I will be so psychologically
dissociated that I will no longer care when bad
things happen?

And, what is this fetish you've got about conchshells?

And, where is my picture of God?


-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fetus brandishing
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1irvl7INNccl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes...

[...]

>Have you ever been pregnant and abandoned by the man who helped you
>become pregnant? Raped, then pregnant? Pregnant with a fetus that is
>severely damaged? (And don't give me that "God's will crap, because
>my Bible says God is love...be logical for once.) Have you ever
>faced any of these decisions? Then shut up!
	
	Golly Linda.
	I am a former fetus.
	I know that the decision that is made to abort is not a 
decision to abort oneself, but to abort a fetus (z/e/f).

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sean's delusional nature 
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan9.224224.23173@midway.uchicago.edu> 
	<1993Jan9.235010.10039@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 10 Jan 1993 07:02:09 UTC

In article <1993Jan9.235010.10039@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>And I don't believe "everything is a delusion," comrade...:)

What is not delusion or illusion?

>You're right. But our consciousness is _not_ the source of decision, although
>it can be a trigger for the decision process. That's all I'm saying.

What is the source?

[On a side note, Dano writes:]
>> Change is Death.

And Life. And the only absolute constant. Not bad for just another
metaphor.

>I can't, personally. I can write a crappy poem in 10 seconds, but not
>a beautiful one. Maybe you can -- if so, congratulations. But I think
>my point still stands.

If you wrote it from your heart and your mind, it would be true beauty.

>I was trying to get at the question of 
>"inspiration." You've never been stumped when trying to come up with
>a word, and then all of a sudden it "comes to you?"  Never been stuck
>on a problem when all of a sudden it all becomes clear? You can't
>force these processes. You can try, but they work in their own time, more
>or less independently of consciousness.

What is perfection?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: ankh (you very much?)
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:26:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.192912.29102@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>
>Folks,
>   I have recently become aware of a lot (relatively) of people, specifically
>women, wearing ankhs.  Do they have a current symbolism, or have they become 
>a new "in" thing (again)?
>
>	mark

     Dunno... I've always worn them.  To me, they meant the combination of life
and wisdom. (And they seemed to like me back...It's so hard to resist a piece
of jewelry that likes you.)  I've noticed they're coming back in fashion, too.
I know the Raves picked up on the idea pretty well half the time.

                         Ankh if you love Isis;
 
                         La Mort.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:34:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

OK, let me take the position of a Christian, and suggest that the
following statement is a logical one, based on the rule if A could do
B, than A is a A because A needs to do B in order to qualify to belong
to the set of As:

Mark 16:17-18:  "And these signs shall attend those who
    believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak in new
    tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
    thing, it shall not hurt them..." 

So this is the logical statement, those who believe (A) need to do (B)
in order to authenticate themselves to belong to the set of As.

If this statement is a logical statement, then we have an authentic
Christian one, and I withdraw my critique about Christianity and logic
(instead of my point that Christianity is founded upon faith, faith
and faith).

So, the other point is, that if this supposedly logical statement
is valid, it shows that most of Christians are not Christians at all,
and we have an even better measurement to shake out the real ones from 
the false ones. So if you want to justify your faith, you have the tool!

Now, if anyone that is a true Christian objects to this logical
measurement,
it implies that logic can't be applied to Christianity, looking from
my point of view. If you don't agree upon the premises, how could you
then draw the final logical conclusion, true or false?

The scene is yours, ladies and gentlemen! I think Kirkengaard and I am
on the same wavelength concerning Christianity :-).

Cheers,
Kent
PS: Who has to soon step down with the private Net activities, because
he's moving to a new group, and that implies a lot of work initially.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:33:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan5.195203.27135@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> >OK, let me take the position of a Christian, and suggest that the
> >following statement is a logical one, based on the rule if A could do
> >B, than A is a A because A needs to do B in order to qualify to belong
> >to the set of As:
> 
> Mr. Sandvik, your babbling is becoming profuse.  The above "rule" is
> nonsensical.

Justification please, let me know where this logic was not logic.
From my view it looked like a classical set theory construct where,

{every A, where A a belongs to those believe in Christ}
has a property that could be verified.
 
> >If this statement is a logical statement, then we have an authentic
> >Christian one, and I withdraw my critique about Christianity and logic
 
> An argument against your claim presently stands unrefuted; there is no
> need for another.  We await your retraction.

And I said that the premises are so vague, and posted a similar one to
show my counter point. Sorry, but if you can't resolve this clear
Christian logical construct, then my point that 'something's rotten
with Christian logic' is still a valid one.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan