HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Truth in topic
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.184129.11977@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>It is very interesting to scan through all the topics addressed on
>this group (misc. religious) and note that overall Christianity in
>its various forms is discussed much more than anything else.
>
>Could this qualify it as a "best bet"?

No. Until recently (within the last 30 years), racial segregation
was the de facto standard in the U.S. and presumably had the support
of the "majority".  Does that make it a "best bet"?

>Is there relevance to the fact that Jesus was the most influential
>man who ever lived _by far_, even though we are in disagreement as to
>the type of influence?

Jesus the most influential man who ever lived? 
That's debatable.

Dano
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:08:10 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov17.155449.11947@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|> In article <17479@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
|> >In article <BxBtMy.CGs@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
|> >>In article <25OCT199220165792@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...
|> >>>Do the Mormon's worship a different God from the rest of mainstream
|> >>>Christianity?  Do we worship a different Jesus?  Let us put this stupid dispute
|> >>>to rest.
|> >>> 
|> >>>Yes!  Yes!  A thousand times yes.  We worship a different God.  We preach a
|> >>>different Jesus.  We are not the same religion as you fundamentalists.  If you
|> >>>are Christian, then we are not.
|> >>
|> >
|> >John puts it strongly, as usual, but he is right.  Each person can
|> >only speak for him or herself, but I certainly can not worship
|> >any God who condemns the bulk of the human race (his own creations,
|> >no less) to hell, including innocent children, for not believing
|> >in "the right Jesus".  I can't worship any God who would condemn anyone to
|> >eternal torture *regardless of their sins*.  I wouldn't do that
|> >myself even for someone as evil as Hitler.  Most enlightened humans
|> >recognize torture as something beyond the pale of justice, yet here
|> >we have this supposed God that uses it as a routine punishment,
|> >for even the slightest sins, and calls that justice.  Yes, I recognize
|> >that I am a sinner, but no, I don't think I am deserving of the
|> >punishment the fundamentalists have in mind for me.  
|> 
|> I entirely agree with the sentiment of this (though I have no beliefs
|> in any "God").
|> 
One can argue endlessly about the fairness or justness or lack thereof
of the way God has set up the universe, but it's not going to change the
facts. If it really is the way the Christians say it is, it is prudent
for the non-Christian to decide what he is going to do about it.

Lets take an example from gravity. I can say that gravity is very 
unfair to me if I step off a cliff or a bridge. However, it works
very well when I want to walk around my house or drive my car.
It's not too smart for me to say, "Well, since the law of gravity
is unfair in certain circumstances, I'm not going to believe in it."

God is a very wonderful person. I'm glad that we can know him because
of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 
-- 
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
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:48:20 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <11585@scott.ed.ac.uk>

9211.20 e.v.


Hello.  I followed kalki and Brian right through to the end here.  Very
lovely.  Radical subjectivism meets radical objectivism.  Result: no
real communication.  However, the points each of your makes are very
important to the study of religion.

1) kalki: Knowledge can be assumed based on authority if there is
reason to believe that this authority is reliable.

2) Brian: Knowledge can never be assumed without reasonable justification.

3) kalki: Subjective processes yield absolute truths.

4) Brian: Empirical tests yield tentative truths.

5) kalki: The instruction of a definite model without acknowledging that
the motive was instruction is a supportable reason to post.

6) Brian: One model of reality is simply that and placing it in the form
of a test is deceptive.



My perception of the situation is that it may be helped by the following:

a) Kalki - Explain why it is that you think that the Vedas, Krishna and
Bhaktivedanta Praphubananda are reliable sources of authority.

b) Brian - Explain why it is that one must prove something in a consensual
and empirical manner in order to demonstrate a transcendant truth.
If it cannot be proven with words but only through processes, then what
will argumentation yield?

c) kalki and Brian: If you both take the time to learn each other's
language and come to understand the models of reality that each of
you are using (in this thread at least), then you'd find, I think, that
your approaches are not that far apart, nor are your conclusions very
unorthodox.

d) kalki: Study some elementary materialist Science to see where Brian
is coming from.  Especially that which is very modern in its view.

e) Brian: Read some of the Krishna Consciousness literature and then
do a light read on basic Hinduism.  You'll find that kalki's ideas are
quite common among those who integrate Christianity and Hinduism and
that he is an orthodox Krishna devotee.  There are a few around on
the nets and simple belittlement (however deserved) won't breach
the gap between you.


Enjoy.
This has been a 30-second announcement from the Tantric corner, where
we see all coherent points of view as valid yet incomplete expressions of
ultimate truth. ;>

Thyagi
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:18:51 GMT

In article <BxvqnK.Dv0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   The Catholic Church teaches that both aspects, procreative and
>unitive, are important.  The teaching on artificial contraception does
>not make procreation the only valid, nor the most important, reason
>for sex.  Rather, it forbids a couple from deliberately interfering
>with the procreative aspect.

	If the couple does not want children at some particular time,
the the "procreative" aspect of sex will interfere with the "unitive"
aspect, since the couple will worry about being saddled with unwanted
kids. So the Vatican's position presents many couples with an
impossible bind.

	And what if the couple wants to perform some nonprocreative
sex acts? Like one masturbating the other? Oral or anal sex? To those
who need introduction to what I'm talking about, I will explain
further. One of the two fingering the other's sex organs (Women seem
to like experiencing this, just as we all know men do :-). A woman
sucking a man's penis. A man licking a woman's clitoris. A man's penis
going into a woman's rear end. I know that these are rather blunt
terms, but the Vatican seems awfully beat-around-the-bush, using terms
like "the conjugal act".

	And has the Church officially rejected the Josephite
(celibate) marriage as an ideal? Has it rehabilitated Jovinian yet?

	Furthermore, the Vatican's language seems awfully prissy. It's
like these aged celibates have no idea of how to enjoy sex, or else
are unwilling to describe how.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:58:15 GMT

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>  Andreas should not be take as representive on any other JW, any more
>  than tony should be representive of any group Christian, Fundamentalist,
>  or JW...


	You bore me. Perhaps I don't fit to the idea you have of JWs. I think
	you should realize that beloning to a same religion doesn't make people
	100 % similar copies of each other. 

	What comes to the subject itself, I was employed by A.I.T and I was 
	mostly Atheist (I considered myself an Atheist), but I have had a 
	Lutheran education and the Lutheran church never doomed any of my 
	actions. 

	If I were a fanatic, then I would try to kill you, but I don't. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:55:17 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov20.191514.15345@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.221230.17969@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> >Moses led the Israelites out of slavery.  Paul sent a slave back to his
>> >master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
>> >though it had been his own child, no?  What conclusions am I supposed
>> >to draw from all this?
>> YHWH(through Moses) provided the Israelites with a legal code
>> that explicitly endorsed slavery. I also remember something like
>> "Slaves, obey your masters" in one of the Pastoral Epistles.
>   This was written to those who turned to Christ while still
>   under Roman domination ... what happened ? The Roman empire vanished
Yes, bringing on not what I would call an age of enlightenment or
one in which slaver vanished. Would you mind accounting for the
Mosaic code now?

-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: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:09:26 GMT

In article <11551@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>...in the Bible zillions of people are deprived of life in a
>>>violent fashion for no fault whatsoever, with the approval of the
>>>deity or in fulfilment of a direct command of its.
>>
>>In ekr style...WRONG! using the *loosest* possible definition of fault...
>
>Which is what?
>
>>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?

>[various examples of *seemingly* faultless people]  Shall I go on?
please don't.  i don't think it's necessary.

To answer your first question, I recall a discussion how most people
(we have yet to find an exception) are born *selfish*.  That is a
faulty trait that frequently manifests itself through the age of
accountability and onto the age of sinility.

Terence

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:56:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.221555.13854@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, lungtt@gus1.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
|> In article <92318.113622RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
|> >No, the Qur'an does not say that the gospels are insprired from God...
|> >Siddiqui.
|> 
|> Does the Qur'an mention anything about Jesus healing anyone?  the blind
|> in particular?
|> 
|> Terence

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
(5:110-111)" Then will Allah say:' O Jesus the Son of Mary! Recount my
favour to thee and  to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy
spirit so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity.
Behold! I taught thee the Book and wisdom, the Law and the Gospel.
And Behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were the figure of a bird, by My
leave, and thou breathest into it, and it becometh a bird, by My leave.
And thou healest *those born blind*, and the lepers by My leave. And behold!
thou bringest forth the dead, by My leave.
And Behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from violence to thee when
thou didst show them the clear signs, and the unbelievers among them said:'
This is nothing but evident magic.'
And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle;
They said: We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as
Muslims (**submitters**)."

Sincerely Yours 
Gani Skepi
d89-gsk@nada.kth.se
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: All cretans are liars ?
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:22:39 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

This always seemed strange to me.  There is no paradox if I say "All
students are liars" since it leaves open the possibility that a student
other than me tells the truth, or that I tell the truth some of the time.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov13.005750.13489@microsoft.com> 
	<WIGGINS.92Nov21172606@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 21:04:53 UTC

jah write:
>   />But, if Jesus was the son of
>   />God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
>   />since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?
lungtt writes:
>   /No record?  One of the Gospels reports of Jesus addressing God in Aramaic
>   /kind of as "Daddy" not just "Father" in that spot where he says "Father,
>   /why have you forsaken me?"
bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>   Wrong.  Dead wrong.  In fact, embarassingly wrong.  You don't even 
>   know your own bible, Terence.
>   The quotation you are referring to is "Eli, eli lama sabachthani?", which
>   translates, "MY GOD, MY GOD, why hast thou forsaken me?"	
wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>Excuse me, but I must butt in.  Eh-hem.  Mark 14:36, at Gethsemane
>Jesus said, "ABBA, Father, all things are possible for you; take away this
>cup from me: nevertheless, not what I want, but what you want."
>"Abba" is recorded as the actual word He used.  Hence, the repetition of
>the Greek to explain that Aramaic Abba meant father (Dad[dy]).
>Think about it: "Abba, Father..."
>BTW, stop pickin' on Terence... :)

OK, this brings up some interesting points. Is there anyone in the OT
who addresses The Lord as Father? I'm too lazy to go through a
concordance right now and off hand this notion of The Lord as Father
strikes me as a pagan one, ie not Semitic. Do Moslems ever address Allah
as Father? In any case, Christians do address their God as The Father.
For example, "Our Father who art in Heaven ..." . Now, if a Christian
refers to the Christian God as Father, does that mean that the Christian
is implying that they are the son or daughter of the Christian God? And
about this Aramaic word ABBA: what are the root meanings of this word?
It's not in my dictionary and of course I'm too lazy to go to the
library right now, but I wonder if father or Dad or Daddy are not quite
the correct translations. Maybe Jesus was just prophesizing about the
pop group by that name. (Just kidding :::B^}  )
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:58:16 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>>Somebody else wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
>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?

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.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:44:46 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <adams.722275016@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>>>>I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.
>>>>I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
>>>>know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?
>>>>But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
>>>>the original poster - through salvation.
>>>And what if I specifically want my somewhat insane pit bull Cujo?
>>
>>Take it up with God! ;-)
>While I agree that the scenario itself is bogus, I'm quite serious.
>What happens if if my idea of how heaven should be is incompatible
>with someone else's idea?

Two possibilities, as I see it.

  1) It doesn't matter, you get what God gives you and you *WILL* be happy.

-or-

  2) God has constructed heaven in such a way that you will be given that
     which makes you the most happy.

For some reason, I expect you to object to idea 1....;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.003030.9401@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
>that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
>but as I say, he was in no position to know. 

Certainly he was.  Christ appeared to him.  

Whether or not Peter
>was in fact teaching this is at best debatable.

Read I Peter and see for  yourself.

Link Hudson.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:26:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.175235.15512@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>I've lost track of how many times I've corrected Mr. Sandvik's
>revisions of Jesus' claim.  For the sake of clarity, I'll restate it.
>   Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and
>   all these things [food and clothes, from the context] will
>   be given you.
>I have been promised that the folly in this claim will be made clear
>to me.  In that discussion I am interested.  I do hope the discussion
>will not again involve the red herring of billions of Chinese who are
>well-fed.

It is possible to trivially satisfy the claim.  For instance, if your
definition of "someone seeking the kingdom of God" is so strict that nobody
satisfies it, certainly everyone in that (empty) set has food and clothes.

The claim also can be trivial in other ways.  For instance, if you consider
someone who is malnourished but not dying of hunger as having enough food, it's
going to be hard to find kingdom-seekers who don't--they'd all be dead.
Similarly, if "enough clothes" means "has one shirt and one pair of pants", it
is going to be hard to find _anyone_ who doesn't have enough clothing.

Or if, for instance, you define "kingdom-seeking" so someone must do things
that only rich people have the time or resources to do--for instance, require
donating a thousand dollars to churches, which people without food/clothing
can't afford--it's also trivial.

Finally, you have to _really_mean_ "everyone".  You can't just mean "more
kingdom-seekers have food and clothing than non-kingdom-seekers", because if
you do, billions of well-fed Chinese are suddenly relevant again.

These points have been brought up before, but I thought I'd remind you of them.
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21347 alt.atheism:21482
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:35:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <kmr4.183.721609701@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
writes:

>
>	So, I can rape all the women and young girls I want- I can kill as 
>many people as I want, as brutally as I want to- I can steal all that I want,
>And, I only have to honestly repent before I die to go to heaven- and yet, 
>if I was a honorable native american, who's culture never even heard of 
>Jesus, I would go to hell?
>
>	So, when can I sign up and start the killing and raping?
>
>( Hey, I think I understand why so many Christians kill! )


	There's a play that makes an excellent point about this.  It's called
Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All for You.  It's a great parody of Catholic 
teachings.  See it or read it if you get a chance.

Shari
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: The Son of God
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:57:32 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov18.200847.13954@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John
Emery) wrote:
> Not long ago, I posted many scriptures (260+) that showed that the
> New Testament writers clearly supported the deity of Christ.  If anyone
> did not see this post and would like a copy of the Scriptures, just
> send me a quick message.
> 	Mark 3:11 Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before 
> 	him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." (NIV)

Just one quick observation, this passage tells us that Jesus is/was
the Son of God. But it does not state that he was God -- even worse
it states that he was not equal to God -- he was the son of God.

Sigh, maybe simple things are too simple to understand,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.