HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:44:41 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov20.054823.20780@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-181192184737@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >OK, if we want to continue with comparisons, the Nordic countries
> >are maybe the most apathic Christian countries in the world (OK,
> >NZ and Australia would maybe get the first place in such a competition).
> >Also, all these countries have something in common that the highly
> >religious USA does not have. And what is that? A clue, it has
> >to do with compassion for the common man.
> 
> Are you sure that this is a clue?  My postulate rests on the
> theory that humans are *selfish* by nature.  viz.  Put lots of them
> together in concentrations and rot from hell compounds on itself.
> Look at Taipei, Bangkok, Manhattan, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Sodom...
> apathy to the max!

And also a lot of religion to the max... However I'm not drawing
conclusions that fatalistic religion worshipping and social
misery go hand in hand. My example showed that there's more than
a religious moral eagerness behind social welfare.
 
> The Nordic countries represent so little of the world's total
> population, how can they possibly have problems as bad as the
> population concentrations.  When we get that few people together,
> I think it becomes more obvious that we actually need each other.
>    side note:
>    It's hard to find any Scandenavian restaurants around here.  :(
>    It's not like Chinese restaurants which are practically at every street
>    corner around the world.

Hehe! I guess that's a serious social problem, then.


> >It's called free social health care.
> I think a discussion of health care steers away from the point.
> In fact, it didn't help the Bangladeshi one bit.

Why not? Lack of funding? At least it's an attempt to help people
using the welfare of everyone. 

While you are so keen to compare population sizes with social
welfare, I assume you have an explanation why all the Chineese
have free medical services, and no public religion. I'm deliberately
leaving
out the issues of democracy, however we are just now dealing with
social welfare as one form of social morale.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:45:59 GMT

Richard, i think we've taken this about as far as we can...neither of us is going to
convince the other. So this is my parting shot in this thread - you can respond & get
in the last word if you like. 

As I see it there are four beliefs you claim to hold:
    1) In general, abortion should be banned from conception.
    2) The Bible provides justification for #1.
    3) The primary evidence for #2 is the verse from Jeremiah.
    4) But this verse 
       a) Does not mention the act of abortion
       b) Doesn't mention conception [you've admitted this in our discussion]

You obviously see no contradiction in these four beliefs - to me it's such a clear
violation of logic that there's no point in discussing further.

'Til the next topic,
Charlie
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:39:34 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <92325.154408RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>Quite a number of times Josephus of the Ist century C.E. was brought up as
>a historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All Biblical scholars
>(with the exception of christian apologists or polemicists) concur that
>the books of Josephus were tampered by early christians. One of the  early
>christian historians, Origen, does not mention Jesus, but a century later
>Eusebius, another christian historian, says that Josephus, a Jew, indeed
>accepted Jesus as a Christ. And the copy that was produced by these christians
>do show that several bracketed sentences were added to the manuscript.
>Prof. S.G.F. Brandon in his book, Jesus and Zealots, like most other research-
>ers simply conclude that Josephus's book as it stands today, cannot be cited
>as a proof toward historical evidence of Jesus. I shall encourage interested
>readers to read this book of Prof. Brandon.
>
>--
>Siddiqui.

Josephus's comments are still widely quoted by many fundamentalists,
but I think it is conceded by even many evangelical scholars that
the Josephus passage was doctored to make him look like a Christian.  
It is one of those unfortunate things that hang on long after scholar- 
ship has put them to rest.  Josephus's remarks don't prove anything
even if they were authentic, and now they prove an unnecessary emba-
rassment for people who quote the doctored text.  Josephus does 
provide one of the few external references to Jesus, however.  
Am I correct to assume that Prof. Brandon does not refute that 
reference?

I find your comment about Origen interesting.  His work was
suppressed, and most of it was destroyed.  As I recall it
was supposed to have gnostic tendencies, but his name never
became completely anathema.  The gnostics acknowledged Christ
as a cosmic divine being but did not believe that he actually
incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth and die on the cross.  I gather
that some aspects of Origen's teaching were accepted as not being
entirely within that "heresy".  We always have to be skeptical
of works we know only from their detractors -- e.g. manicheans,
Cathars, Templars, etc.  

Can you provide more details about Origen?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:45:28 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:

> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> > Fight?  Fighting takes a serious adversary, and you don't look like one.
> 
> In article <2wRDuB22w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> > I think you're just a chicken, boy! Bwak, Bwak, Bwak!
> 
> 	Oh yeah?  Well, >I< think Ivan probably has a code of honor
> which forbids him from engaging in battles of wits with unarmed
> adversaries. 
> 	By the way, where's that proof that abiogenesis didn't happen
> that everyone's waiting for in talk.origins?  You did say it was
> straightforward.  "Read the book," is not a proof, especially when the
> book is apparently available only from some obscure Vedic publisher
> for $10.  People are not going to shell out that much for a book
> without some evidence that it is worth more than a pile of fetid
> dingos' kidneys.  At least one person has offered to read the book if
> you send him a copy at your expense.  Ball's in your court now.

Chicken! Bwak, bwak, bwak! Amazing cackling hens! The sky is falling!

Sincerely,
Kalki "service ace" Dasa



       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT to NT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:08:50 GMT

Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
: 
: Ken, if you could give a few specific examples from the Bible, I would be
: glad to respond with some reasonable explanations as to how the OT and NT
: are completely consistent. 

This is the *third* time I have given this example, but for some
strange reason, no one wants to address it.  I don't know why I
should expect an answer this time, but what the hell.

From the beloved Ten Commandments:

Ex. 20:5  "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, *** visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me.***

If you would like, I can give dozens of other flagrant cases of
God punishing innocent people for the sins of others. *Please*
address this issue!

-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:11:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual






>|If Jesus is the one and only God and Jesus dies on the cross, then God dies
>|on the cross. Or Jesus isn't the one and only God. Or Jesus doesn't die.

>Jesus the man died - God did not die.

>|Then Jesus is only God somewhat "indirectly", thus not *God*.

>He was God - and clothed himself with humanity, but he didn't cease being God.

Your explonation of how it is possible that Jesus was both God and man is
confusing at the very best. The truth is that God the Father didn't die on 
the cross, but God the Jesus did. Yes, Jesus as God did experience mortal death. 
To say that Jesus the man experienced mortal death, but Jesus the God didn't 
is a double talk unless one believes in a split Jesus. To me Jesus was more 
together then any other being I have a knowledge of. Jesus *is* one.

>Again, I ask for your reasoning for saying Paul created the doctrine and
>was not just the messenger.  There is no doubt that Paul was a major 
>player in the NT church.  However, it was well recognized by the other
>disciples/apostles that Paul was the messenger to the Gentiles as Peter
>was the messenger to the Jews - Peter, a man rather close to Jesus the Christ,
>recognized this and that Paul's writings were authoritive (i.e., Scripture.)


Peter also gave a strong warning about the difficulties associated with Paul's
teaching, and that many has "wrested" Paul's writing for their destruction.

2 Peter 3:16
------------
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are 
somethings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable 
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

I believe that the same problem exist today. Many teach a theology after the
misunderstood teachings of Paul.


With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:29:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> >> The problem is there seem to be a lot of offers of "processes".  How do I
> >> pick the right one?
> >
> >This is the right one. Pick it.
> 
> Okay.  I guess since you know what you're talking about, you must be
> right.  What is your process?

Are you willing to follow it precisely, to the letter?

> I want the direct process whereby I can see the "material mind" that
> you say your god is.  I don't want fluff to get in the way, like
> chanting meaningless phrases or shaving my head.  I want to see your
> god.  Show him to me.  Bring him to me; I'm here.

Who said God is the "material mind?" It definitely wasn't us.

So you want the process, but at the same time you want to do only what
you like. Is that it? Then go pay $50 to some bogus guru who promises
that you can do whatever you like and become God in six months.

Sincerely,
Kalki "there's a seeker born every minute" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:35:25 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov19.201554.9338@ee.gatech.edu>, ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
(Lonnie D Harvel) wrote:
> However, I agree with Pete, if asked for a proof for God, tell
> the honest truth, "I have no proof, only faith."

I hope other Christians would have the same view; many long-term
threads in this newsgroup start with Christians and non-Christians
arguing about (missing) evidence.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov17.164908.27157@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
|> pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
|> : -- 
|> : The whole idea that there is an inconsistancy between OT and NT misses the
|> : mark. God is the same God in both books. His mercy, compassion, stedfast
|> : love, justice, hatred and anger towards sin are expressed in both testaments.
|> : In both testaments is the idea that God doesn't change. Start with the
|> : idea that the same Being is talked about in all the books of the Bible. If
|> : you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
|> : NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
|> : of the Bible.
|> 
|> I have asked this in another thread, but let me ask it again since
|> I doubt it will ever be answered there.  How do you reconcile the
|> fact that God in the OT punishes innocent people for the sins of
|> others with the belief that God is Just?  How can justice have any
|> meaning in this scenario?  Is something Just simply because God
|> did it?
Can you be more specific? I don't remember a place where God punishes
innocent people for someone else's sins. 
I can think of a possible case where King David sinned and the whole
nation wound up being punished. If that is the type of thing you mean,
then I suppose you could type it as an innocent getting punished for
someone else's sin. 

The reason I'm not bothered by God acting that way is that it does
seem consistent with the nature of sin. Sin always affects more than
one person. Sometimes so called innocent people get affected by
the sins of people they know nothing about. An instance of this is
when rape is done or a sniper starts shooting people. 

Another reason I'm not bothered by it is that the Bible clearly states
that the wages of sin is death. So, on a strict fairness application,
any punishment that falls short of death is actually less than fair, but
it does show God's mercy. Over and over and over again, God acts in 
mercy. When he does actually stick to the letter of what he said
people jump up and down and say he was unjust. The facts seem to be
more the other way around, that most of the time people don't wind
up getting killed for their sin, rather most of the time God exercises
his patience and mercy. 
-- 
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
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:32:06 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721875575@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
>>flat out lying?

>If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
>right now.
Why?

>Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
>him with anything...specifically his comment about Satan being "the
>father of lies."
Yeah, so? Why is it bad if I don't trust God?

>Come on....God is incapable of lying. It completely goes against his
>perfect nature.
What makes you think that God has a perfect nature? Because he said
so? Maybe he was lying.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cam@cam.mentorg.com (Cam McMinn @ RLS)
Subject: Tolerance in general
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:44:37 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

After looking over some of the conversations about tolerance
or the lack thereof, I figured I'd get my two bits worth in.

The pertinent background info is that I'm a Christian (although
I in some ways hate to say it because of the truckload of
stereotypes associated), and I attended churches of various flavors
until my late twenties when I bagged it for a number of reasons
(none having to do with Christianity, all having to do with the
church).  

Two bits worth:  There's never enough compassion to go around.
When I look at the teachings and actions of Christ, I see com-
passion, empathy, concern for society's outcasts, and genuine
distaste for the holier-than-thou religious types of his day.

When I ask myself how he might appear to today's world and what
he might do, I conclude that he'd be found helping to heal the
wounds of any number of groups... the homeless, the elderly,
kids in cancer wards, prisoners, battered women, AIDS patients, 
you name it.
 
So what the heck does this have to do with tolerance?  When I 
think of tolerance I think of folks assessing what they are and
aren't going to condemn or forgive, and that's an entirely 
different line of work that assessing what needs to be done
and doing it.  I know a number of Christians (some are close
friends) who are adept at spelling out why actions A, B, or C
are right, wrong, Biblically justifiable or heretical, but when
it comes to acts of kindness, even subtle ones like not being
judgemental about people we work with who don't talk, dress, or
act just the way we'd like them to, there's a serious gap.

Talk is cheap, but wisdom is proved right by her actions.  
Whether it's the person across the hall, my wife, a friend, or
a relative in a nursing home, there's almost always some tangible
thing that can be done to help, and if I read the scriptures
correctly (such as the parable of the sheep and the goats), this 
is one of the differences between a real believer and a talker.

When measure 9 hit Oregon's ballot (the one that would write
"wrong, perverse" next to "homosexual" in the Oregon constitution),
I wasn't nearly as caught up in thinking about whether or not I 
was going to "tolerate" homosexuality as I was in entertaining
how much damage the Christian community was doing to its cause
(illustrating Christ to the world) by supporting such a measure.  
Christians should be down at the AIDS hospice befriending some of 
these folks who are sick and dying, not pronouncing judgement from 
the pharasaical easy chair.

Cam McMinn  cam@cs.MENTORG.COM
Portland, Oregon

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:41:59 GMT

In article <J6qDuB17w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> Show me this "material mind."
>You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
>too lazy?

The problem is there seem to be a lot of offers of "processes".  How do I pick
the right one?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:15:54 GMT

SA1 12:7  Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you 
before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he 
did to you and to your fathers.

ECC 7:25  I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to 
seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the 
wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

ISA 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: 
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; 
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

ACT 17:2  And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and 
three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

ACT 18:4  And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and 
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

PE1 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready 
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of 
the hope that is in you with meekness and fear


However, I agree with Pete, if asked for a proof for God, tell
the honest truth, "I have no proof, only faith."


-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Back-pain theology
Date: 24 Nov 1992 04:42:12 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

                    BACK-PAIN THEOLOGY

  Theorem:  If there is a creator-god, there must be at least several of them.

  Proof:   The human spine - it had to have been designed by a committee.

                    Edgar Pearlstein, University of Nebraska.