HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:52:15 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <2451@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.024506.3324@samba.oit.unc.edu> Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>>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.
>
>Other than a geographic similarity, what specific facts lead you to
>believe that papal Rome is the "heir" of pagan Rome?
>
After making this observation I began to question it.  That is why I am
trying right now to stucy the matter more.

>Allow me to reiterate my earlier observation.  The city of Rome (or the
>Roman church) could not be the harlot of Revelation because the city of
>Rome was NEVER the wife of God.  Only Jerusalem, the city of God, and
>Israel, the wife of God, could possibly be viewed as a spiritual harlot
>from God perspective.
>
A question Tom, what did Jerusalem represent?  It seems to me Jerusalem
and the women are both representations for God's people.  Also, why does
the city have to be literal?  Could not the term city be symbolic just as
woman, mountains, and waters are?

>Rome the city as the harlot is pure speculation.  Rome the church as harlot
>is impossible because the Roman Catholic church didn't exist at the time
>the book was written, and therefore it wasn't persecuting 1st century
>Christians.
>
>-- 
>Tom Albrecht

"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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14345 talk.religion.newage:3875 sci.physics:13146
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:53:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug20.050941.26630@u.washington.edu> mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes:
>sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (Scott Chase) writes:
>>They don't understand...that physics deals with the facts of the mechanical
>>world and that religion deals with morals and values and that the two are
>>completely disjoint bodies of knowledge.  
>>
>This sounds a bit extreme to me.  It's quite difficult to maintain
>the position that science is completely disjoint from morals and values.
>The fact/value distinction isn't as clear-cut as we like to think.
>

     While science probably can never be independent of the fact that
     we are humans, one of the aims of science is to create a description
     that is as independent of such things as possible.  There should be
     (and its) an active effort by scientists to make values, morals and 
     physics as disjoint as possible.

     It seems to me that this effort is what gives physics 'value'.

                                    dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug11.150704.5211@tss.com> <64LM03pw59ca00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
	<1992Aug14.160017.10786@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:39:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.160017.10786@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
<The Oxford philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne recently
<attempted to PROVE that God is tri-une.  (I heard him do this at a
<meeting of the American Philosophical Association; if he's put his
<proof into print, please let me know.)  God (whom he characterizes as
<necessarily necessary) would be lonely, Swinburne reasoned, and,
<hence, would create the Holy Ghost; the two of them, knowing the joy
<that can come only from parenthood, would then (have) created Jesus.
<What fun.
<He's got the names wrong, though, hasn't he?
<Surely the Trinity is (are?): Brama, Krishna, Shiva 

Well, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, of course, well I see what you are doing, it gets
kind of interesting, you are saying Krishna is like Jesus and Krishna was
the personification of Vishnu, but Krishna may have been the personification
of Shiva, he (or she) or course never made this clear. This is what Westerners
hate about Eastern Religions, the East does not provide solid answers to
the questions that can't actually be answered. Kind of funny, if you think
about it, but most Westerners want an answer, even if there really is none. And
so they believe the earth was created in six days when in fact that is metaphor.
But the names aren't so important, it is the concept of cycles upon cycles and 
creator-sustainer-destroyer that are important. I wonder how many billions and 
billions of years it will take the Christians to realize this? All this time
they have been assuming that man is the master of nature and is free to rape
nature to the extent that he feels is necessary, after all the Kingdom is not
on earth but in Heaven, according to the common mis-interpretation of the
Bible. But some day they will discover that the Kingdom of God is right here
right now, it is only a question of seeing it for what it is. Hell is not
seeing this.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14434 alt.atheism:15569
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:54:34 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

In article <d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>you!                                                            ^^^^

Last time I was offered FREE GIFTS! I had to listen to a
time-share presentation for two hours.  Are you selling
ranch property?  Especially since your horse is running away?  

By the way, in the State of California, if you are offered a FREE GIFT
you are under no obligation to pay for it.  This means that by asking
for our soul in exchange for the FREE GIFT, Jesus is violating the
State Business Code.

Always read any solicitation and prospectus carefully before
signing anything.
-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Keywords: special pleading
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<sbuckley.714432253@sfu.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:03:07 GMT

Stephen Buckley writes:
i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.

Scott Gibson writes:
In other words, Eric is right:  You are engaging in special pleading?

Stephen Buckley writes:
well no.  let me explain it in other words.  i grant the reality of 
spiritual experiences with or without jesus.  they are all real.  thus
i am not doing special pleading.  what i am saying is that i believe
from my experience, study, reflection and prayer that non-jesus experiences
are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god.

---
So, I guess after 10 years out in the wilderness you never did pick up
the meaning of special pleading. I still would like to know exactly what
you were doing those 10 years of intensive religious study when you
claim to have studied every religion and returned to, as you say, the
crutch of Christianity. As far as I can tell so far, you've returned to
Christianity because you felt threatened by some all knowing monster who
will destroy you unless you worship him and because you have confused
special pleading with absolute truth and you find the crutch offered by
Christianity to be more comfortable. So what else is so exciting about
this particular brand of Christianity you claim to have found? Did you
get any free gift offers? Did you fall for that old devil's gimick that
you are evil and the son of god committed suicide because of how evil
you are and the only way for you to even get a slight chance of being
forgiven for all these crimes is to sign up for the free gift? Yeah,
I've heard that grift too, it's a crack up isn't it? You didn't sign
your soul away though, did you?
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:24:45 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: Gordon Storga writes:

[variously deleted for space]

: >Why doesn't god speak to me?
: 
:   god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
: tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

Does God talk directly to some people outside this autobiographical 
work?  If he talks to some in this way, why not all?
 
: >If the bible is so clear and Christianity the *one truth*, then why are
: >there so many sects?
: 
:   some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.  some
: sects are doctrinally nearly identical to others, merely there are different
: styles of worship for different kinds of people.  and some sects have more
: fundamental disagreements over biblical theory in practice, yet still accept
: the role of jesus.  those that don't accept jesus don't even fit the 
: dictionary definition of christian.

Your response doesn't really answer the question, unless you are saying
that the "radically perverted" views are intentionally insincere.  
Personally, I think fundamentalists are misguided, but I wouldn't claim 
they are insincere.  Could it be that they are radically perverted 
because the Bible isn't clear and people honestly misunderstand?

:   you've asked some really good questions.  keep asking, but i'll ask
: you, do you believe there are absolute, objective and knowable answers?
: if not, then you don't need to ask any of these questions.

The claim that absolute answers exist isn't immediately obvious.  
Since I hate thinking for myself ;), life would be so much 
easier with them.  Therefore, I would like to know if the claim
is true.  You provide the answers, we will evaluate them for
consistency.  If they withstand the test of credibility, I and many
others will be compelled to accept it as fact.  Just because we don't
currently accept the claim of absolute answers doesn't mean the questions
are needless.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless...etc.
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:11:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Case in point:

In article <92235.115107SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.033206.26783@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen):
>
>Just back from the Republican national rally perhaps,
>issues Bible Nazi call for the cleansing of talk.religion.misc and
>posts loyalty oath.
>
>Sig heil!  Sig heil!  Sig heil!
>
>JCtoo

Granted, this post may have a precious little entertainment value,
but it and its type get us nowhere as a group.  Why mature adults
resort to such things when handed a keyboard I will never know.  Is
this why we read the group and post?  For entertainment?  Quite
frankly folks we are all as good as dead and a serious forum for
discussing spiritual matters is in order if we can only cooperate and
take each other seriously.  Not that any of you care, but if we can't
get our act together I don't know why any serious individuals would
want to argue their legitimate points with the type above...  I would
(and will) jump ship if I were you.  Surely you have better things to
do.

So what about it?  Lets here from everyone one way or the other, and
make your stance on the first issue known!

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Calvinism (was: *I* am THE way.)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:17:43 GMT

In article <16048@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>Steve Gross again promotes Calvinism:
>>A logical conclusion of your Calvinism should be stated as: 
>>	"Be as vile as you like, it will have no effect on salvation; you 
>>	can get to heaven anyway.  On the other hand, if you are not destined 
>>	for salvation, at least you will have gotten some satisfaction for 
>>	actually deserving hell, and maybe even punishing a few of the 
>>	'chosen' who will celebrate your eternal punishment." 
>I have little truck with John Calvin, but couldn't he simply
>answer that God, being omniscient, knows every act that every
>person will perform already before they do it.  Thus, the chosen
>will not be those who perform vile deeds, but those who are
>good.  ...

Not only that, but "be as vile as you like" assumes that you have the choice
to be more or less vile.  If the Calvinists are right, not only don't you
have the option of doing anything to affect salvation, you don't really have
the option of doing anything, period.  You can't _decide_ to be vile, and so
you can't take advantage of this God's rules.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:57:26 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <sbuckley.714121616@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
>are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
>non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
>but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.

In other words, Eric is right:  You are engaging in special pleading?




-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:16:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.123256.12662@phillip.edu.au>, on 10 Aug 92 17:32:56 GMT,
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:

>
>In article <19920808204423ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>
>> "As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>> and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>> Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>> alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>>
>> I'm not quite sure how this got past the censors of the early Church,
>> but it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus did not regard
>> himself as God, and actually rebuked an admirer for using language which
>> might suggest that.
>
>   A very good explanation of this verse I heard in a sermon was that the man
>who approached Jesus was addressing Him as just a teacher -- another man. Of
>course no one is good but God alone. No man is good (for all have fallen short
>of His glory) and Jesus was right in saying this as the man would not have
>known of His deity.
>
Considering Jesus' reply, not only didn't the man who asked him the ques
tion realize that Jesus was God, but apparently Jesus himself didn't
realize it.

>--
>================================================================================
>lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay
>================================================================================
>
    ====Jack====
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:37:35 GMT

In article <12903@inews.intel.com>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.171145.8583@news.cs.brandeis.edu> 
>aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
><It supposedly goes up to including gravity.  The point is there is one
><interaction that manifests itself to us as seperate interactions.
><This is similar to the Trinity.  There is one God, who manifests himself
><in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Just because there are three 
><manifestations does not mean there are three gods.  There is only one God.
>
>So, is Hinduism with it's one transcendent and three aspects called Brahma,
>Vishnu, Shiva, polytheism or monotheism? Is there really a difference
>between monotheism and polytheism or have these words only served to try
>to make one religion better or more valid that all others?

My VERY limited understanding of Hinduism (from an undergraduate course on
India) says that Brahma, Shiva, the Buddha (according to Hindus), Krisna,
and a few others are all avatars of Vishnu, the big god.  To decide whether
or not it's mono- or poly- theism depends on how you view the nine avatars.

All I was trying to say in my post is that the concept of one God manifesting
itself as three persons (still only one God) is not necessarily totally
foreign to our thinking, as the poster to whom I responded stated.  So, again,
three persons in the Godhead does not necessarily imply three gods.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Paul Harvey's remarks on Xians and Old Nick
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:18:37 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Re Paul Harvey's remarks about Christians serving the devil


Personally, I'm fond of the Gnostic position that Catholic (and Catholic
derived) Christians are in fact servants of the malevolent demiurge - the
sub-god whose arrogance and egotism led him to proclaim himself the 
One True God. Sophia (wisdom) laughs at him, the Gnostics say. 

Note - the Gnostics also say that people serve the demiurge because they are
not "mature" enough to receive _gnosis_.  So maybe we shouldn't be too hard
on them! :-)

Sean Hartigan
wanna-be neo-Gnostic (curse you Irenaeus!)


Jesus said: "He who seeks shall find; he who finds shall be troubled; he who
is troubled shall be astonished; he who is astonished will rule over the All."
(or something like that)  
- Gospel of Thomas
(well, not the part in brackets, actually. That was me *blush*)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:42:00 GMT


FAIR WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The article shown below was crossposted to rec.humor, along with many others over the 
past couple of weeks.  So many of these have been seen, and have annoyed the users of
the rec.humor group (who have uniformly failed to find anything even remotely funny
about the thread) that a Holy Flame War is apparently now imminent.  

PLEASE STOP CROSSPOSTING THIS THREAD IN rec.humor PERMANENTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



In article <sbuckley.714031443@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes...
>swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> 
>>In article <sbuckley.713175264@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>|m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>|  
>>|>Or if you prefer a more direct, define(in a non-circular manner) what "good",
>>|>"holy", "sin", and "loving" mean then see if your stated reference indicates
>>|>if the postulated entity (Yahweh) fits the description.  In my opinion, it
>>|>does not.  I find activity which, if performed by humans, is described as
>>|>"Evil", "unholy", "sinful" and "not loving" being performed by the diety
>>|>described (mostly in the OT).  ...
>>|
>>|  god created the universe and is justified in judging it however he wants.
> 
>>Oh really?  So creating something automatically gives one the right to
>>do anything at all with the created!  Really, if we managed to generate
>>life in the lab, would you then conclude we could do anything we wanrted
>>with it?  Or would you say that we should treat it like any other living
>>thing?
> 
>  no that's not what i said.  god is justified in doing whatever he wants
>with his creation.  if i write a poem, i can burn it, but if i could create
>life, i could do whatever i want with it.  but 2 things.  one is i don't
>believe humans create life.  i believe god does.  human beings can have
>sex but god creates the life.  :)  two is if you can prove to me that i
>can create life, which entails proving god is not creating life [but
>both of those are empirically unverifiable], then i would discuss your
>hypothetical as reality--until then tho, it's just hypothetical.  and since
>i'm not god i cannot do what i will with his creation.  his will rules.
>and his will is to love him with all my heart, mind and soul, and to love
>my neighbours as myself.
> 
>---                          
>     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