HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.215420.29371@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
> ... [quotes from Matthew deleted]

First of all, these quotes you brought up by themselves have little
relevance in the question we are debating, concerning whether the
'lake of fire' mentioned in the Bible means the literal
'torture chamber' (as held by the medieval scholastic dogmatism,
examplified by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica) or that
the 'lake of fire' is a Biblical metaphore for the state of
separation from God (as held by the true Calvinism - as stated by
John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.)
I have shown in another thread ("Afterlife theology in Judaism
and Christianity") that Calvin's interpretation, that the
'lake of fire' is a Biblical metaphore for the state of separation
from God, has the backing of the Scripture.  You may want to read the
discussions in that thread.

To be more specific, I would say that these quotes from Matthew
are concerning God's discipline on the believers.  If you read
through these verses carefully, you will find that they are addressed
to the believers.  They are not about the "hell" in the modern sense.
Nowhere in these verses does it mention that the said discipline will
last forever.  Oh, Matt. 25:41 does mention 'eternal fire' (literally,
'fire of the ages').  But 'eternal' modifies the word 'fire', NOT the
duration of the discipline.  By the way, the word 'hell' never appear
in the original Greek in any of the verses you quoted.  The word used
was 'Gehennah', which has its specific meaning as used in those days
(check with Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.)


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:17:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: world,public

In article <1992Dec12.215420.29371@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.171541.7798@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.021022.3866@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>Jesus' teachings of hell prominently feature pain and suffering, not
>>>just separation from God.

You're right, Stephen. Separation, pain, and, let us not forget, finality.
The choice we all make every day about whether to remain apart from God is
rather important in that light, is it not?   As (I think) CS Lewis wrote
once, "Could there not be a state of _having_been_ a human soul? And would
this not incorporate separation, suffering, and finality?"

Note: if a car built to run on gasoline has its fuel tank filled with a 
mixture of 1 part sugar per 1 part water, would not the car "suffer"? It
would certainly be unable to do the task it was created for - transportation.

>>[where are you getting this?]

>Gee whiz, are we reading the same book?

:-) one wonders sometimes :-)

>Matt. 5:22  . . . whoever says, "You fool!" shall be liable to the
>hell of fire.
>
>Matt. 8:11-12  I tell you, many will come and. . .sit at the table. .
>. in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be
>thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their
>teeth.
>
>Matt. 10:14-15  And if any one will not receive you or listen to your
>words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or
>town.  Truly I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of
>judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
>
>Matt. 10:28  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill
>the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 
>
>Matt. 12:36  I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render
>account for every careless word they utter.
>
>Matt 13:41-42 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will
>gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers, and throw
>them into the furnace of fire; there they will weep and gnash their
>teeth. 
>
>Matt 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape
>being sentenced to hell?
>
>Matt 25:41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, "Depart from
>me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his
>angels.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Authorial collaboration with Dave Davis  (was: LCD)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 12:14:30 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Short.

-*----
In article <1992Dec13.223924.5613@cass.ma02.bull.com> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
> (from A_Handbook_of_Contemporary_Theology, by B. Ramm,
> Eerdmans, 1966, p.89 ff) [My paraphrasing in sq. brackets]
>
>        Neo-orthodox theologians ...
>
> o	believe that special events of Scripture have a special
>	character ... the realities they signify are true
>	historical realities, but historical in a very 
>	special sort of way.

I can make no sense of this.  It sounds like gobbledegook 
to me.

> o	believe that existentialist philosophy is the best 
>	point of departure for Xtian theology [esp. the
>	existentialism of Kierkegaard].

Ah-ha!  This would explain the gobbledogook sound.

> o	generally agree that any rationalistic or empirical
>	approach to God is wrong, if not wicked.

And after my great introduction explaining that *every* subject
is appropriately subjected to rational discussion, and that
every ontological claim is appropriately subject to empirical 
investigation!  Our book seems doomed to schizophrenic 
contradiction.  (Of course, this might make it good existential
philosophy!)

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Bible verse for the day.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 15 Dec 1992 03:31:47 UTC

In article <1gj54dINNlk2@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> Bill writes:
>"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."  
>Proverbs 4:23
>In Christs Love,
>Bryan

This is kind of interesting, JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) has:
More than all that you guard, guard your mind, for it is the source of
life.

Something to think about I guess.
In Vino Veritas,
Paul Harvey, - good day!
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.6
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:14:20 GMT

kalki@debate.is.futile.borg.borg.borg writes:

[ lots of polysyllabic foreign words deleted ]

>	There are the mighty Yudhamanyu, the very powerful Uttamauja, the
>son of Subhadra and the sons of Draupadi. All these warriors are great
>chariot fighters.

Kalki, I guess your postings here have improved on some level, because
nobody can really argue with what you have to say -- but that's
because nobody can understand it!

Would you please tell me WHAT the heck the significance of this
quotation is?  I mean, chariot fighters are nice and all, but give me
a good tank any day.

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: schaerer@isi.ethz.ch (Thomas Schaerer)
Subject: Re: Who is an ex-Christian?  (was: What is Christianity?)
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:00:10 GMT

A very easy answer. I am an ex-Christian!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:02:32 GMT


Because "sharing a universal neurosis spares one from the task of
creating an individual one."  (Flame Freud, not me! :)

SD
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Perfect Love (...by definition...)
From: lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:01:23 GMT
 <1992Dec9.155423.10400@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1992Dec9.182007.25417@linus.mitre.org> <1992Dec10.024455.19222@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University 

In article <1992Dec10.024455.19222@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, 
	muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> Why don't you ask Him?  (I'm not kidding in the least...)
> He certainly knows better than I, and He will not lie.
> 
> John M.


This is quite a good idea. Perhaps you could write Him a letter. Really
let fly with what you want to know, what pisses you off about Him, even
why you think He doesn't exist (if that's waht you think).

But then, and this is the bit you may not find so easy [as if the above
is easy] write His reply to yourself. Write His reply.

As I said, you don't have to believe in Him for this to be of use. 

You don't have anything to lose.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.mythology
From: bill@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (William E. Johns;S23015)
Subject: Heaven and Hell: was Afterlife theology in Judaism and....etc...
Organization: Washington State University
Distribution:  world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:50:52 GMT

In article <Bz17Cv.EMB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling) writes:
>In article <fWlGqNE@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>In article <fWhUSv3@quack.sac.ca.us> 
>>>the pagan heaven/hell picture of
>>>afterlife is the dominant theology.  
>
>
>um, i'm curious, since most modern pagans that i know heartily shun the 
>concepts of heaven and hell...

oh I dunno.  A triple hot fudge sundae can be heaven and a pair of leaky
fork seals the morning of the Big Ride (tm) sure is Hell.  ;-)

Ride Free,

Bill
________________________________________________________________
johnsw@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu  prez=BIMC 
AMA #500924   DoD #00314   WMTC #0002  SR= 3 
Yamabeemer fjgs1200pdr100 740GLE  KotV KotRR KotD #0001  :-)
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Guilt is the love of staying stuck.

                                          Hugh Prather
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:45:33 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada





Why in the name of the blazing blue Buddha do people hate Mormons so much?
I am not a Christian in any socially meaningful sense of the term, but
I have known a lot of Mormons, and a lot of other serious Christians,
and in my experience, Mormons are the kindest, most hard-working, most
decent, most moral, least objectionable Christians around. These are
generalizations, of course, but I worked for a Mormon once, and he
was one of the most decent men I have ever met -- and so were 
most of his friends, his sons, etc.   I think their dogma is more than
a little loopy, but geez...no more so than regular Christianity. 
 
I do NOT want to start a flame war here, so let's keep this
civilized, okay?

Note: if any Mormons think that a question like this will do more harm than
good, just post a message saying so. I don't want to bring any more
flak on you than I know you already get.  I'm just baffled by the
animosity many people have against the LDS church. Is it just
sectarian back-biting?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. 
-- Usenet Survival Guide
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:38:04 GMT

If I understand correctly, Mr. Sandvik would like someone to explain
to him the Lutheran model of the trinity.  Other theologies will not
do, for he may reject them if they counter his perception of Lutheran
theology (he has done this once already).  If he had made this clear
from the start, for he would have saved non-Lutherans the trouble of
arguing against his unstated assumptions, and he would have saved
himself the embarrassment of posting a blatantly false dichotomy.

Perhaps a Lutheran will take up the task.  If Mr. Sandvik wishes to
hear from the rest of us he will have to relax his restrictions.


                                      Gregg Skinner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: God etc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:34:21 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>    Then enlighten us, O sage, what precisely is relgion about?

>I've been thinking on this question for some time, and my conclusion
>is that all religions provide philosophical systems that the adherents
>of the religion use to establish a relationship between themselves
>and the world around them. These relationships are as varied as the
>religions: some have primary focuses on social interaction, some focus
>on on other systems (such as the relationship of man and nature);
>some are theistic while others are athiestic.

This is almost completely in contradiction to what I consider the basis of
religion.  IMO, religions and philosophies are two completely different things.
Philosophy is rational, that is, it works on the intellectual level of a
person.  REligion, on the other hand, addresses the non-rational parts of 
people.  Religion goes right down into the unconscious and creates a bridge
between the various parts of a person.  Philosophy addresses one aspect of
a person, while religion unifies a person. Philosophy exists in words and
thoughts, but religions are collections of techniques for assisting people to
connect to the Divine, whatever than may be.  I hope this makes sense.

Enjoy the journey!

                      --Br'anArthur

                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:59:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>Answer:
>
>To be Christ like and obtain a relationship with the Father.


But I don't want to be like Christ and I don't want a relationship
with his dad.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Latin verse for the day.
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:53:55 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1gj54dINNlk2@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> Bill writes:
>>"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."  
>>Proverbs 4:23
>>In Christs Love,
>>Bryan
>
>This is kind of interesting, JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) has:
>More than all that you guard, guard your mind, for it is the source of
>life.
>
>Something to think about I guess.
>In Vino Veritas,
>Paul Harvey, - good day!

Well, wine is fine, but I prefer:

Amore vincit omnia, et nos cedamus amori

Dano
(Love conquers all, and let us yield to it - Virgil)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:19:19 GMT


|> %In article <1992Dec10.172246.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> 
|> %  holt_c@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
|> % 
|> %>I don't know why, but this reminds me of the absolute weirdest sin I've ever
|> %>been accused of.  It came during my infiltration of the Church of Christ here
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Infiltration??  Was this some kind of undercover mission to reveal
the horrible corruption in this church or something?  I am an athiest, but
wouldn't think that going to a few Church of Christ meetings would be an
'infiltration'  I might go to find out what they think, but I certainly
wouldn't do it maliciously.

|> %>on campus.  Basically they said my sin was not having a girlfriend at that
                            ^^^         ^^^
|> %>moment in time.  Their actual words were, "You are depriving some girl of
                       ^^^^
|> %>yourself."  And I thought I was strange.  Does anybody out there feel that 
|> %>I am depriving them.

	Is this an US and THEM argument? Do you group a whole set of people
together here, or was it just some one or two people who were making small talk?
Maybe one of them was hot for you and had put the others up to it...  It is 
possible for those 'Christians' to act like normal folks you know.  

Bob 'tired of Us and Them' Huss
	

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:46:47 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>If you have a problem with a word that a group of people have chosen to
>describe themselves - feeling it "silly" - then it is YOU that has the
>problem.
Precisely.  And without that term, I and many others wouldn't have the problem.
One could argue that I could change, too.  I may yet.

>: (This is, btw, called "pragmatism").
>No comment.
I shouldn't ask, but why not?  You seemed to accuse me of being irrational, and I countered by asserting that I thought your view was impractical.
 
>Bill

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23889 alt.atheism:23700
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:45:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <1992Dec10.220454.27100@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
> 
> >A meat eating, destined for hell Hindu
> 
> 	I thought that the great Hindu forbidden food was beef :-)

All meats are forbidden for some class of Hindus. Of course,
beef is the most forbidden.

> 	And what is the Hindu Hell? I thought you get reincarnated a
> lot. :-)
>

The last part of Mahabharatha describes "Hindu Hell" (The
Pandavas stay there for a while). Unlike the Christian Hell
where you burn for all eternity, time spend in Hindu Hell is
proportional to the bad deeds. Now you know why you should
be a Hindu :-)

On the other hand, Bhagavad Gita says that you get reborn
till you achieve Self-realiztion. Contradictory, right ?

The law of Karma (rebirth/reincarnation) was originally 
postulated to explain miseries, injustices, etc and to
demand moral behaviour from the average human, just as Hell
and Heaven were. Since they are not demonstrable propositions,
they are nothing more than fiction (my opinion. refer Deutsch
"Advaitha Philosophy"). 

> 
> -- 
> /Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
> /lip@s1.gov

RKP
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 01:54:08 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
 <1992Dec09.233339.23836@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu>
 <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com>

In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com>, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen
Kilmer) says:
>
>Answer 1:
>
>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>is empty.

  Well, jen, it sounds like you need your hole filled badly.

    --DAVE!!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: On faith  (was: ... least common denominator)
Summary: transwhat?
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:32:41 GMT

Well, here we are talking about faith again.... :-) 

In article <1992Dec16.053718.25421@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Paul Tillich would argue that the "faith" required for religion
>(perhaps contrary to your assertion) is trans-rational, i.e., 
>that it transcends both rationality and irrationality.

I'm tempted to say that Tillich could write whatever he wanted, but
he needed rationality on both ends to get it across. I'm tempted
to say that, mind you, not that I actually would.  :-)

>Another point to consider is that not everything need be
>subject to empirical tests in order to ascertain validity,
>or need require rational justification.

But some things do. Faith may be one of them.

>P.S., I hope you and Dave keep up the discussion.

Thanks.

Dave Davis

QOTD:

'Those who claim to see the limits of human reason also claim,
 of course, to see beyond them.'
		(roughly, from memory) 
			Wittgenstein

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc