HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hayek@eemips.tamu.edu (Khalil Hayek)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Summary: God is Not our father?
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:31:08 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <1992Apr7.141548.16022@news.iastate.edu> tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu writes:
>	Answer... The answer is the Heaven is the reward God will give to the
>people who believe in Him and Worship Him alone without adding other Gods with
>Him. He will reward them for there faith and good deeds. Hell is the punishment
>that God gives to those who refused to believe in Him and to worship Him as He
>has commanded them to. Some people have invented lies against God and have
>included them in thier religion thus there is a lot of cofusion and
>misunderstanding. God is Not our Father, we are Not his Children. God Is our
>Lord and we are his Servants.
>
>	The Truth that hasn't been changed is with Islam only,
>	Abdur Rahman

Jesus taught us to pray saying "Our Father, ...". The term father here does
not imply physical relation; rather a metaphysical and metaphorical one. 

I'd rather think of God as some kind of a strict father than as a lord whom
I should serve. IMHO, the notion of servitude implies a class gap, a feeling of
inferiority on the servant's side, and a suppressed eagerness to revolt, 
suppressed only by the promise of something better after a life-time of
servitude. NO. I'll stick to the father thing. It makes life easier.


And  then, I believe, there's a lot that goes into determining who goes
to heaven and who goes to hell, a lot that does not depend on whether you
believe in God, a god, a dozend gods, or nothing at all. A lot that depends
on YOU not on your BELIEFS.

Khalil Hayek

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Khalil F. Hayek
hayek@eemips.tamu.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Keywords: angry young man
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:30:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <adams.702931279@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
>>How about a new newsgroup for those of us (cheers, Kent!!!) who are
>>thinking clearly? It could be called "talk.life." 
>
>So any of us who truly believe in God are not thinking clearly?  I don't
>understand how you can claim this to be the universal case.  I for one like
>science, and respect scientists.  Science doesn't get in the way of God any
>more than God gets in the way of science.  I like the physical sciences and
>accept most of the theories promulgated.  

He didn't mention science explicitly, although I for one think that religion
and science will always conflict.  Anyway, one of the areas in which I
don't think you can be thinking clearly is with regards to your homosexuality.
I am somewhat baffled by the homosexual Christians who throw up smoke
screens to try to hide the rather obvious fact that the Bible, your holy
book, is quite clearly anti-homosexual.  I would imagine that Christian
homosexuals must go through some quite agonizing rationalizations in
order to convince themselves that God really does love them too.  This
only compounds the problems resulting from being a member of a homophobic
society.  The solution to me is obvious: junk the damn religion.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.190815.18975@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>
> The "ex-LDS for Jesus" group has been very active in the central Indiana Area.
> You could proably take their 12 week indoctration class if you wanted to.
> I've known many participants in this offshoot of the LDS church, most
> of the characterations that are made would not be recognizable by active
> LDS.
>  
Hi Kermit,

I think you have this group confused with someone else.  Ex-Mormons
for Jesus is based in Whittier California, and is a Christian evangelical
group working on leading Mormons to Jesus.  They are not an offshoot
of mormonism in any way, shape, or form.  They have a large number of
Christians that have never been mormon on their mailing list.  To further
encourage Christian involvement, they have recently (Feb) changed their
name to something like Concerned Christians Evangelizing Mormonism or
something like that.  Anyway, Ex-mormon is no longer part of their moniker.

(or is Ex-LDS for Jesus something different than Ex-mormons for Jesus?)




-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 12:39:25 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
 <92097.121025MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <adams.702587692@spssig>

In article <adams.702587692@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>
>MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."  from the KJV
>>note that it is _not_ "murder," but is actually "kill."
>>So that's where it says it.
>
>Yeah, except KJV is a poor translation in many cases.  From the NIV,
>including the footnote:
>
>[Exodus 20, NIV]
>
>  "(13)You shalt not murder*"

Well, I hope the NIV is actually a better translation of the bible and
not just a quick fix of problems like these.

>
>* 20:13. 'murder' - The Hebrew for this verb usually refers to a premeditated
>and a deliberate act.
>
>So while you might have a claim to 'kill', NIV says that the Hebrew verb
>usually means 'murder.'  There is a BIG difference.  Other supporting
>verses are those that prescribe death as the penalty for violating certain
>of God's Laws.  If it is read 'kill,' how then can the penalties required
>in God's Law be carried out?

I'm not the one trying to prove the bible! My intention is not to make the
bible not contradict itself. It's nice that the NIV rewords it, but as I
said before, I hope the translators didn't just reword it to their tastes.

>
>>It is possible to claim that a christian can't kill in any way from this...
>>perhaps they shouldn't even eat anything they killed themselves...

>Wrong.  You can't just yank this line out of a poor translation, and remove
>all of the context.  Look at God's Law in Leviticus.  Tell me that man
>isn't allowed to kill.  In fact, man is ordered to kill.

Quit whining! It's a commandment; it speaks for itself. There isn't much
context involved. I know the bible orders people to be killed left and
right all over the place, but I am not trying to prove it's logical.
Also, the other idea which you like might be better--god ordering man to
kill is awfully merciful...

>
>Look also at what God told the Israelites to do to the inhabitants of
>Cannan.  Read the book of Numbers, especially Numbers 31, where God
>commands the Israelites to begin a holy war with the Midianites.

I've already read up on the god-ordered slaughters, including the several
plagues god himself perpetrated...

>
> -Steve
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:38:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Apr13150042@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>Let's see just how well you handle this one yourself, with the very
>issue you cite.  Do you wear leather?  Do you eat meat?  Do you eat
>dairy products?
>
>I know people, Christians among them, who abstain from all these for
>purely moral reasons.  How well do you bear up under this standard?

There is such a thing as "a doubtful disputation."  In the case of meat
offered to idols, this directly effects Christian teaching.  Wearing leather
is generally okay according to Christian teaching.  John the Baptist
wore camels hair.  Jesus ate fish.  These moral reasons the in the example
you give do not deal with Christian teaching.  They do not deal with sin.
Very few informed Christians would honestly say that eating meat or
wearing leather is contrary to Christian teaching.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: The After-life
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:25:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.012115.7172@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erin Anderson) writes:
>
>	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
>call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
>father would not want to punish me for the rest of my life, why would
>the Heavenly Father (who MUST love me more than the earthly father)
>put me in punishment forever? 

He doesn't, Eric.   He wills completely the opposite.  In fact He has
gone to radical extremes to prevent this from happening, even to the
point of sending His own eternal Son to pay the penalty due us.

> Even if it is because he wants you to
>learn your lesson, isn't it a bit far to take it?

Yes, I would say that it would be.  He is not trying to teach a lesson,
He's in the business of loving and saving.  2 Peter 3:9 says that "he
is patient with you, not wanting *anyone* to perish, but *everyone* to
come to repentance."

>-- 
>Erin Anderson    -    Socks    -    The Robe, The Ring, and The Romance.
>ARC's Philosopher, Dreamer, & Stand-up Comedian.
>		       (Lis's Hero on call 24 hours.)

In His Spirit,

John Emery
emery@tc.fluke.COM

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:04:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1992Apr7.150459.20387
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <adams.702651754@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:
>
>>If you enjoy your life, why ruin it by always thinking "What if...."
>But that's just it.  My life isn't ruined.  Why do you all think that
>following God ruins peoples' lives?  I enjoy my life MORE because of my
>religion.
>

I never implied that "God" ruins your life.  What I intended is that if you
have to question every action you take, in terms of "God's" views, what fun
is life?

>>If there is a God, I'm sure he would want us to enjoy everything he has
>>given us to the fullest, and not worry about Him.
>
>The available evidence suggests otherwise.  Granted, many people don't
>accept the evidence of the Bible, but, hey, that's their choice.
>

Here we go with the "evidence in the Bible" thread again.  I didn'nt want
to get into this, but it always seems to rear it's ugly head.

Before that, could you explain yourself?

- Alan
-- 
 ___________/ Alan S. Olson  UW-Milwaukee Chemistry Department \______________
/     e-mail to alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  OR  alan@alchemy.chem.uwm.edu      \
|          Want some good music?  Check out Milwaukee's own BoDeans           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Child custody
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:24:18 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu


	I read the article about Child custody. Nothing was told about lying
	in the court. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:05:25 GMT

[...Pitts' comparisons of Christianity and Islam: apparently, he thinks that
    Jesus' claim to be the equal of God to present a paradox, or something...]

The Muslim tradition is rife with mystics claiming to be God.  Sometimes they
were put to death for it, and sometimes they were understood (and not put to
death for it).

In the Muslim view, Christians perverted the message and meaning of Jesus' visithere, by ascribing a son/father relationship between the two.  This, the Muslim
believes, is blasphemy.

There is no contradiction between the Muslim assertion that Jesus was a prophet and his claim to be God.

There is only a contradiction between what Christianity asserts about Jesus, andwhat Islam asserts about him -- with no objective means of determining who is   "correct" (as one posting has already pointed out).


Richard Huddleston 

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child custody
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:23:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	I read the article about Child custody. Nothing was told about lying
>	in the court. 

I think I agreee with Andreas on this one.  I see why Walter thought
the booklet was hypocritical, but I don't think I'd really call it
lying.  It makes sense to advise people not to choose the 5 most
gung-ho kids in the church to testify, and I don't see anything so
terrible about saying "remember you're not in a church play -- the
goal isn't to sound as pious as possible".  The evidence I've seen
(not just in this group) does sound like JW's don't place the stress
on education that many Christian groups do.  I think that's
unfortunate, and it might affect my opinion on where I think a child
would be better off.  But the business about pioneers seems largely a
matter of degree.  In many churches becoming a minister or priest is
sort of an ideal held up to kids.  That doesn't mean you really expect
them all to do it.

It's clear that this booklet is telling them to minimize the
differences between JW's and "normal" people.  But I don't think I'd
say they are proposing to lie under oath.  There are a range of JW's.
It's not lying to make sure that the court sees that they're not all
extremists and they don't all become pioneers.  I admit that there's a
certain hypocritical flavor to emphasizing different things in the
court-room than you emphasize in your own teachings, but I suspect
this material is well within the normal limits of preparing witnesses
for cases like this.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:16:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr13.182845.9765@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>
>>In them is salvation by the grace of God?  NO!
>
>Yes.  Exaltation is also by grace, after being judged on our works.

Wait!  You are judged by works... so how are you saved by grace?!?
What about "the movie" ???  The Preacher specifically mocks salvation by
grace...

>>Is Jesus God?  NO!
>
>Jesus is divine, but he is not the same as God the Father.  Everyone
>knows this as part of LDS doctrine.

So basically you've got multiple God's, or is Jesus less than a God?
If he is then this seriously detracts from his clout as Savior of all
mankind.

>>What else do you need besides Jesus?  According to the Temple ceremonies
>>quite a bit...  In fact he is not even an issue!
>
>He is a very prominent issue.

But he is not all you need, right?  Answer the question: what else do you
need besides Jesus to earn salvation?


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 -- of Francsicans, F117s and stuff...
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:59:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <ktl6a4INNe4n@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:
| In article <1992Mar31.174515.17622@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| >Well, I'm not sure whether or not the exorcism had an effect -- I have more
| >respect for magick than you do.  I do know one thing (Dennis, are you 
| >listening?) -- the clerics were performing magick, without clear purpose
| >and an understanding of ethics.  If they are going to persist in such,
| >they need to do a lot of reading and meditating.  Dennis, if you are
| >involved with these folk, I suggest strongly that you go over to alt.magick
| >and ask, very nicely, for some advice and starting points.  Repeat -- ask
| >very nicely.
| >
| >   Fritz
| 
| Sigh ... this *has* been humiliating no doubt.
| 
| Perhaps most frustrating for me is that I honestly still do see a legitimate
| case for the event I described to have been an intervention of God.

Please note, Dennis, that I have not been indignant.  If you guys
can take out a plane with magick, then that is, under the proper circumstances,
a really useful skill.

My only concern is that you all understand magickal ethics -- that you are
responsible for what you ask for.  If what you ask for kills someone, then
you, not your deity, are responsible.  Don't perform magickal acts and
then get coy when they work.

    Fritz
From: dcs@witsend.sci.com (D. C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The After-life 
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:10:24 GMT
Organization: Absolutely nobody but me


In article <12228@tamsun.tamu.edu> hayek@eemips.tamu.edu writes:

  [reference deleted -- dcs]

# Yes, I agree, every religion has its carrot. But there's something else that's
# funny too, exclusion (or exclusivity whatever.)
# See, most religions claim salvation for everyone... It might not be in the
# form of biblical heaven, it might come after an infinite number of
# incarnations, but it comes eventually. The religions that came out from the
# Semites, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim salvation only for
# a subset of their followers

  Huh?  Get your facts straight.  PLEASE don't tar Islam and Judaism
  with doctrines made up by the Church.  A number of Muslims have
  pointed out that Islam respects righteous non-Muslims.  Judaism is
  even more explicit, teaching that a righteous Ben Noach has as much
  place in the Olam Ha'Ba as a Kohen Gadol.  Since there are only
  seven Noachide commandments (all pretty basic), this is a very easy
  mark to hit.  Self-respect demands a lot more.

#                             (we have to agree that Christianity is the most
# universal of the three and that the exclusion in it is not so explicit or
# strict as in the other two).

  Dead bass-ackwards.  Turn on your TV some Sunday morning and you'll
  hear a half-dozen Protestant preachers tell you why the others are
  going to burn forever because their theology doesn't measure up.
  If you got them all in a room together the only way to avoid
  bloodshed would be to mention the Pope (they'd all go into a frenzy
  tearing into *him* for being a HellSpawnToolOfTheDevil).

  I've never yet met a Muslim who asked me if I'd "been saved",
  or who terrorized little Catholic kids with Hellfire on
  casual acquaintance.  Jews likewise.  I very seriously doubt
  that you can find *any* substantion for your claim.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                 dcs@witsend.sci.com ---
--- There never was any correspondence between my views and SCI's ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homsexuality and the Bible #2
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:41:51 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1307@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:
> 
> I have been reading the articles in the previous posting about this subject.  
> There is something that I would like to add to this discussion. I think that
> many people are missing what is going on here. I am also curious as to what
> many people consider a christian to be. It seems that the question here is 
> wether or not homsexuality is "right or wrong". What I have to say about this
> is that if you are a christian then I ask you to recall this verse:
 
>   "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall
>    not inherit the kingdom of God? Do no be decieved;
>    neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
>    nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
>    nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
>    nor swindlers, shall not inherit the kingdom
>    of God." 1 cor. 6 9-10

Please note that this comes from Paul, and *not* Jesus.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.215214.10429@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>>The content and tone are clearly the responsibilty of persons long
>>since dead, the fact that at this point in time that the gruesome
>>events, the slaughters, butchery, etc. are considered laudable
>>events inspired by a deity and worthy of praise is the fault of
>>those who _now_ in_ the_ present_ take this point of view.
>
>Didn't this just get discussed in alt.atheism?

It still is being discussed in alt.atheism.

>Judaism does not teach that slaughters are worthy of praise; you could only
>think so if you are unaware that Jewish traditions do not use the Old
>Testament alone, but include commentaries which tell what lessons should
>and should not be learned.

Oh those infamous commentaries.  It reminds of the Christians pointing
to a passage where Jesus says "love your neighbour" as if that nullifies
all the bloodshed elsewhere in the Bible.  I contend that actions speak
much louder than words, and the Bible is filled with despicable actions.
Can any sane person really think that all that gore condoned by God
will not have an affect on one who chooses to use this book as a basis
for morality?  Can any sane person really think that there isn't a better
way of teaching a person love and tolerance than to present him with a
book filled with hate and intolerance?  What a loony world this is.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc