HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:16:31 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <Bt5A7y.1sG@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
> J/C/I versions:
> rev0: Judaism: There is but one God in Israel, the Lord. (But law is complex!)
> rev1: Christianity: Add Jesus as His Son. (Hangup with fish mongers, cool icon)
> rev2: Catholicism: Add Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary!
> rev3: Fundamentalism: Jesus is all we can handle. (even runs on Zilog Z80!)
> rev4: Islam: Add Mohammed and other optional prophets. (386/1G/16MEG min)
> 
> So, my question is, which is the best upgrade? Should one stick with the
> fundamentals of the OT, i.e. Judaism, or go all the way for the latest
> upgrade of Islam, or stay somewhere comfortable inbetween? Or should one take
> the best of all of these related religions as one feel is relevent to the one?

 Very interesting concept, but hardly a reality!

 You could try following the law but the Bible does say that we all have fallen
short of the Glory of God, and that the law cannot save us. We are justified by
faith.

  Paul, on a more serious note, you could at least try to be more constructive
in your critisism of Christianity and not make cheap jabs. I detect in most of
your posts a hostility towards Christians and God. Maybe you have had a bad
experience with a church or a Christian, but don't throw the baby out with
the bath water. Sure, many bad things have been done in Jesus' name but that
doesn't mean He wanted them to happen. They were committed by misguided or
blatantly dishonest men who have used "religion" as an excuse to do their own
will.

                 I will be praying for you!



-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:14:55 EST

In article <sbuckley.714034287@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

> why would god just forgive us out of the blue?  

because any real God may NOT be the god which certain legalistic humans
invented in their own image. 
Forgiveness "out of the blue" may not be as strange and foreign to 
Him as you suggest.

> but transgression demands punishment 

... only if you're a hyper-legalist whose shorts are screwed on too tight. 
Do you claim this is how God is?

Here in the real world transgressions are often forgiven and forgotten. 
Are you claiming God is not even as generous as i am??? 
This hardly seems likely.


> god judges us based on what we know.  

not by what we do? sounds pretty unjust to me, since circumstances
of birth and education often dictate what we know. 

ando.


> ---                          
>      Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>      sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>    TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>       1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   


    try 1-800-i-need-a-reality-check

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: How evil are the Republicans?
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 11:59:21 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
In article <1992Aug21.115342.27628@wixer.cactus.org> writes:

>I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
>frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
>someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever
>he wanted the country would be okay.

The convention and the ensuing campaign should make it clear to the
people of the United States that fundamentalist and born-again
Christianity is essentially a fascist political movement as much
anything.

We can only hope that the mainstream Christians will have the courage
to repudiate it for what it is.  Clinton has become of secondary
importance.  The issue of the election is the preservation of freedom
against the attack of totalitarians.

>However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of
>another time.

An older Jewish friend of mine with her roots in pre-WW II East
Europe shook her head and said, "A Hitler for the 90s."

If you are one of the homosexual scapegoats the noose is already
dropping over your head, and in Oregon and Colorado it is tightening.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jack Carroll      "We would all be Christians were it not for the
<SECBH@CUNYVM>        the Christians."
                                                         Gandhi
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:45:06 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I can see what you mean by the symbolism pointing to the city of Rome, but
I don't see why the symbolism can't refer to the heir of pagan Rome; that
is, papal Rome.

"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown




--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:14:18 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>How do you populate an entire world from two people in 6000 years?
>
>  i don't know, i wasn't there.  and it isn't the bible that says the 
>earth is however many thousand years old--it's certain *humans* deducing
>that from scripture--making certain *huge* assumptions.  taking the bible
>as divinely inspired doesn't mean we take everything, including the 
>parables, poetry and metaphoric language, literally.  it means reading
>parable according to the rules of parable, poetry as poetry and metaphor
>as metaphor and literal description as literal description.

I would like to second this statement.  The concept comes from people taking
the English translation of the Bible too strongly.  The word translated "day"
in the Genesis passage can mean day (as opposed to night), 24 hour day, or
an indefinite period of time (all from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary).  Besides,
there are no scientific statements in Genesis except that God created
everything (which science has not disproved, and tends to support, at least
right now--that's why Einstein rejected the Big Bang theory).  To compare
the Biblical account of creation with the scientific theory of creation is
wrong because they are talking about two seperate issues entirely.  The
Biblical account's focus is on God's creation of all things and is not
concerned with how He did it; it just says that he did.  The scientific
theory's focus is to explain the phenomena we see with telescopes today and
explain HOW the universe was created.  They are complimentary, not contradictory
unless you go beyond the text.  Of course, the fact that the universe LOOKS 
older than 6000 years does not mean it is older than 6000 years.  That's 
something science can't tell us.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Traditional Institutions (was philosophical homosexuals)
Summary: So maybe we need new ones.
Keywords: institutions, tradition, tyranny, `Rip!'
Organization: Oedipus Oats -- You and Your Mother Will Love Them!
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog helped us unpack groceries.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:59:36 GMT


Ken Miner wrote against "organised homosexuality", and about how human
sexuality can be a kind of tyranny.  Lots of people have attacked him for
those bits of his article, but I think the real problem does not rely at all
on whether his ideas on those subjects are correct.

The problem is here:

> Human sexuality is such an incredibly potent force that it needs to be
> "strained" through the traditional relationships.  Without them it becomes
> an oppression, often an addiction.  This can happen to a heterosexual as
> well but it is simply HARDER for it to happen.

Well, even if we grant this, so what?

If you posit that certain relationships are needed to keep sexuality from
becoming an addiction, that doesn't get you anything.  The traditional
relationships apparently don't work for many homosexual people -- so maybe
what we should do is make up NEW ones that WILL work.

All you have argued, so far as I can tell, is that society isn't prepared to
deal with active homosexuals who don't hide their sexual orientation.  You
haven't said anything which suggests what should be done about that, or why
your solution to the problem is a good one.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"I strongly suspect the things people believe in are usually just what they
 instinctively feel is right; the excuses, the justifications, the things
 you're supposed to argue about, come later.  They're the least important part
 of the belief.  That's why you can destroy them, win an argument, prove the
 other person wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place."
 He looked at Erens.  "You've attacked the wrong thing."
                                           -- Iain M. Banks, _Use of Weapons_
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Keywords: Was Jesus a HATE monger? Well, what did He say in His own words?
Organization: GOP platform will make Luke 14:26 a constitutional ammendment
	<1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au> <BtAn60.BqC@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<66466@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:19:11 GMT

Dogma Test: Luke 14:26

I did not misquote the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26, YOU DID! Perhaps you
should read them again. I do not see the words "love Him more" in my version
of the Bible. Which Bible are you quoting?

In article <66466@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
<Paul look at Matthew 10.
<How does that compare with the Luke passage?  

Ah, it's a different passage? Are the two a contradiction? Is this a mixed
message? Is Matthew 10 a watered down version of Luke 14:26? Did Jesus ever
recant Luke 14:26? I'll tell you what I see. I see that this Jesus was a
pretty bright guy. Of course, we don't actually have THE words He spoke. What
we have is an English translation of Alexandrian Greek writings of people
who claim to have heard Jesus speak in Aramaic almost 2 thousand years ago. 
One would think that errors could occur, given this fact. And so, it is up to
the student to study each passage and draw a conclusion as to the meaning. The
answers are not so simple, one must use one's mind as the creator intended.
If the student takes a literal meaning of this dogma, the student hits the
Luke 14:26 paradox. Could this passage have been placed in Luke for a meaning?
Is it a sign to us to not be dogmatic about scripture? I think so, how about
you? How do you explain these words?

<Worthiness test: Mat 10:38 and anyone who does not take his cross and 
<                           follow me is not worthy of me.

This is just the "Follow me and be Free" test. I know the answer, do you?
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:42:46 GMT

Thomas.Sullivan@cs.cmu.edu writes:
:
: Living a Christ-like life can come from never having heard of Christ.
: I have a hard time believing that God will hold this against someone
: in the end.  I also don't think God will hold it against some people who
: may have heard of Jesus, and "rejected" him, because they had Jesus
: represented to them in some inane manner (I think there have been 
: plenty of unloving presentations of Jesus over the years).  They didn't
: "reject Jesus", they rejected some other character that was presented 
: to them.  

This was the conclusion I had come to after many years of theism and
just before I became an atheist.  The problem with your view is that
it isn't supported by the bible.  You have invented your own religion
as I did to reconcile the many doubts I had about Christianity.  Since
Jesus believed in Hell and I didn't anymore, I decided that the bible
wasn't a reliable witness to God's existance.  Without the authority
of the Bible, Christianity came tumbling down for me.

: 
: I think God will know what motivated our beliefs and actions here on
: earth when we die.   If there is a judgement day, God will look at ALL 
: the evidence, not just certain superficial things like whether someone
: had heard of Jesus or not, then made a decision.  I have to believe that
: God is a better judge than that!

If you found support in the Bible for this view which I missed, I
would be interested in hearing about it.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature)
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248

Is there anyone that gets on here that gets as sick as I do at the kinds
of things that go on here?  It's either the traditional evangelists
telling everyone to believe the Bible literally, or to "accept Jesus"
and quote scripture, or its people getting on to ridicule the latter,
which gets rather boring also.  Does anyone know where important
dialogue goes on about things in the real world, like how can the church
be more like the church and help us all to understand each other and
live peacefully and try to help each other?  And about things like the
environmental issues, alternatives to the militarism of the rightwing
political mood of our country (embodied in the Reagan-Bush years).  I've
also been searching for a place where people are talking about some of
the things churches and theologically concerned/searching persons can
explore how bulletin boards can help us resource each other, and put us
in touch with others who are BBS-ing it around the country about finding
a community ; an "electronic" community that can become a new source of
finding a place to be heard and to listen to others, and what we can all
do to help each other to be the church.   So, any questions? Responses?
Anyone?
                                                                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Lesbian Cross-Dressing Lizards!
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:03:06 GMT

Now that I have your attention, 'cross-dressing' is an exaggeration,
but 'cross-acting' is close.

scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.113210@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>    1.  I believe that there are species of lizards which are 
>parthenogenic.  Apparently, they have evolved, by microevolution,
>from one or more bisexual species on the Ark in the last 4000 or so
>years since the Flood, so that a male and female of each could be
>taken on the Ark?  Or is there some other explanation?

The parthenogenetic whiptail (Cnemidophorus Uniparens) lizards are worth
looking at in some detail. The females apparently still need to be 'courted'
in order to get hot and sticky in the right places; luckily females also
engage in male style courting behavior. Those that are the target
of this role playing are much more likely to bear a clutch of eggs.

Page 214 of Animal Behavior by John Alcock shows photos of  the male-female
dance in one sexual species side by side with a female-female dance in a
parthenogenetic species. (I bought this book on the strength of a
recommendation by Chris Colby - Thanks, Chris!).

The other text I have that describes these lizards pointed me at the following
reference, but I haven't had a chance to look it up yet: Crews, D.
_Alternative reproductive tactics in reptiles_ Bioscience, (1983)
33:562-566

So, creationists, what _IS_ the divine plan behind these transvestite
leaping lesbian lizards, anyway? [heh]. The evolutionary explanation
is straightforward (or so it seems to me).

Regards,
	Max G. Webb

Damn, I love bio. Kind of wish I'd studied that, now.
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:39:25 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

>Young Jeff writes:

><How do Christians justify their claim that theirs is a monotheistic
><religion?  It seems to me that not just God but Satan et al qualify 
><for the distinction of being gods in every normal sense.  I realize 
><that Christians only worship the one called God, but that doesn't mean 
><that the others don't qualify for the distinction as well.  Is it 
><that the claim of monotheism is just a rationalization to discredit 
><and differentiate themselves from the pagans?

>They got the words "one God" and the command not to worship icons from
>Judaism, however they completely screwed up the concept by introducing the
>cross as an icon and introducing the Holy Trinity of Father-Son-Holy Ghost and
>introducing the concept of the Devil. It's safe to say that they never studied 
>the Bible all that well. Christianity is clearly polytheistic.

  the statement "christianity is clearly polytheistic" would be true if
it god claimed he were three distinct gods, not three parts of the same 
entity.  also from your above paragraph, it seems to me that by christianity
acknowledging the spiritual power [tho not god status] of the devil, you
are concluding that that is akin to the devil counting as a god and making
christianity polytheistic.  if that's what you're saying, it's incorrect.
---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:21:41 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714086865@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>You reject as evidence for the truth of THEIR religion precisely
>>the same class of evidence that you accept for the truth for YOUR
>>religion. That is what is known as "special pleading" and is
>>logically flawed. By contrast, I recognize that their
>>spiritual experiences appear to be the same as yours, and recognizing
>>that if I apply the same interpretation to them as you do to yours, I end
>>up with a contradiction, and seeing no way in which YOUR experience
>>is different, conclude that that mode of interpretation must
>>not have force.
>
>  i'm sorry for the ambiguity.  both you and i do not discount the
>relevance of other people's spiritual experiences.  you discount them,
>but i do not.  i recognize the ability to have non-jesus spiritual
>experiences because i used to have them.  so on that we disagree.
>so i'm not doing any special pleading.  what i meant above is that
>"i suspect that you'd discount their realities as well [as mine] 
>because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically unverifiable
>as mine."  sorry for the ambiguity.
Mr. Buckley: You cite your Jesus spiritual experiences as evidence
of the existence of Jesus, yet despite the fact that you admit
that people have had non-Jesus spiritual experiences, you do not
consider this to be evidence of the existence of other deities.
[Christianity is not a polytheistic religion in the sense
that it does not accept e.g. the existence of Vishnu].
That is known as special pleading.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<-c_nl=_.gordons@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:47:50 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
Why does an omnipotent being need worship?

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
he doesn't need it, he deserves it.  worship is extreme gratitude
to the creator for being created. [my definition :) other def'ns exist]

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
Stephen, your "creator" vows to kill anyone who doesn't grant him his well
"deserved"  worship?  Sounds like blackmail to me.

---
Sounds like the prince of darkness to me.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc