HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arron@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:03:31 +1300
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

>> God wanted us to be without sin, I can understand that, I would be a lot
>> happier if people were basically better. If Adam and Eve had done what they
>> were told, we would have been free from sin, as we would not have needed
>> anything to steal, covet, lie for, murder for etc etc etc. But they did sin,
>> and God can not be a party to sin ... so he banished us from the garden, where
>> because we are not walking in unity with God we feel like we always need more.
>> So we sin .... recursive argument ...
> 
> I remember a discussion long time ago where we (the other side) argued
> that a perfect God would have known about the problems of free will
> creating the situation of the original sin and sinning. And the design
> solution would have been to create a free will that does not start
> the evil circle.
> 
> The counter arguments were:
> a) free will is a universal attribute, it can't be created.
>   -- this would imply that there are things God *can't* create
> b) free will and original sin was part of God's master plan
>   -- which would imply that he didn't mind people suffering, something
>      that is considered to be non-compassionate for a eternally 
>      loving God.
> 
> So, we have the solutions, either the idea of free will and the
> original sin are not true, has a hidden meaning that even Christians
> don't know about, or something else. Anyway, I personally do think
> that this is one of the sore issues with the doctrine of free will.

The following is my own personal feeling on free will. I am not starting up an
old discussion, just telling you how I feel. Please don't flame this unless you
have something new to say on it.

a) God could have made us without a free will, forced to love and always follow
him like robotic drones. But he chose not to. Therefore he 'gave' us free
will's.

b) God being all knowing knew that sin was in the pipeline, but he wanted us to
live as people not drones. He has throughout history tried to give us ways of
breaking free from OUR stuff ups. He could have given up but he loves you too
much.

*******************************************************************************
from:arron@waikato.ac.nz			Arron Scott
						University of Waikato
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.bizarre
From: bigdave@vermont.tdd.sj.nec.com (David Sweeney  x2987)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.kibology
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:24:58 GMT

rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
cxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher Fenton) writes:
>|> 
>|> fab doo's...mindless self-inflicted guilt...and all the fab 
>|> glories of polyester... 
>|> 
>
>When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5. 

Galatians?  Whoa, if's been a few years at least!  That was one of my 
favorite games back in high school--I used to play it for HOURS down at
the local 7-11.  Man, I got blisters from that damn joystick, but I could
play for more than an hour on one quarter.  And the music in the bonus
stages was HOT!  Damn--they don't make games like that anymore.

As for Romans... I never got into those historical role-playing games.


-- 
Dave Sweeney     bigdave@tdd.sj.nec.com
(c) 1992 Witless One-Line Followups Ltd.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:05:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.200523.1605@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.001729.26444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>
>> 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?"
>
>Wow. Action-packed stuff. Assumption of implied claim (existence of God),
>*grrrrrrross* condescension toward atheists supposedly choosing daily to
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"remain apart from God" despite there being no such choice to make from
>the atheist standpoint, and argument from the `authority' of the dismal
>CS Lewis all in one brief paragraph.

What, do you mean that you don't choose daily to remain apart from God?
Well, this is how it goes at my house:
*knock knock*  
Me:  You again!
God: Can I come in?  Please, please, please.
Me:  No!  Go away, you omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
     eternal weirdo.  And get a haircut!
*slam!*

This is probably because I am held in bondage by Satan,
as has been confirmed on t.r.m.

Next, let's discuss when we chose our sexual orientation,
followed by a discussion of the time we chose our parents.




-- 
| Eric |         --- Keep "Saturn" in "Saturnalia" ---
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:07:47 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>In article <1992Dec04.174615.2084@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
>|In article <77176@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>||> In article <rana.723431431@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
>||> >Jesus Christ never claimed to be "God" or "son of God". He has
>|    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|Note the statement Richard is trying to refute.

>Yes, note it.  The Bible gives us a mandate about worshipping God.
>We are to worship God, the Creator, and Him alone.  

One one hand you are saying that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him)
was God, and Son of God, and on the other hand you are saying we
are to worship God [Him alone??]. How does God remain ALONE when
Jesus Christ (PBUH) also is God!!!

>Jesus revealed Him to us, for Jesus was the fulness of God in human
>form.  He told us to worship God.

The point here remains the same. Are Jesus Christ (PBUH) and God two
separate entities? or are they the same. If they are separate then 
there are two Gods. And if they are the same then why did Jesus die?
It means God is dead!

[...rest of the article deleted for brevity...]

Most obviously, Jesus Christ was nothing but a messenger of God. 
His saying, and bible have been corupted to an extent that make
him "God", "Son of God" etc. etc.


Sincerely,

-- 
||\\  ||         //\\     ||\\         *******************    (Note: 
|| \\ ||        //==\\    ||//         * LOVE FOR ALL    *     views    
||  \\||abeel  //    \\.  ||\\ana      * HATRED FOR NONE *      are 
[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colordo.edu]   *******************     mine) 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Talk.religion.slam.mormons?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 10:34:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.135531.9689@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>Summary: Get on their good side, or you may wish you had!
>
>I haven't worked it out, but the percentage of material on this
>newsgroup that is related to attacks on the LDS church seems awful high.

Second only to "fundamental" Christianity... :-)

Of course, there is no point in getting on the good side of a
cheek-turner...

>Sean Hartigan
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca

John M.
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:22:46 GMT
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:


>>And if this is true, how is it possible then for seekers of political
>>power to whip up their Hindu adherents to destroy a Mosque in order
>>to replace it with a Hindu temple?

>Simple.  They weren't Real Hindus.
>--
>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

Yes and moreover the recent broadcasts that I've seen from CNN all display
a one-sided story. They all neglect to mention the fact that the the
mosque in Ayodhya was once the site of an ancient indian temple to
Lord Rama destroyed in the 16th century (about that time I think) by
the muslim invader Babar. The Ram tample originally stood where the
Basbjri mosque stands today. The reason why the Ayodhya temple was considered
such a great loss because many believe it to be the birthplace of Rama.

Hindus generally are a tolerant people, but as in all places there are a few
black sheep which taint everyone else's opinion. Just as the heinous acts
of Babar shouldn't be excused, the recent acts in Ayodhya shouldn't be
excused either. I personally don't see the point to causing such a fuss.
But they say, India will never be totally secular.

Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 12/18/92   God's Promise in Luke 1:79
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:47:12 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.142435.642@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>> ...
>>Tell that to the Somalians.  Looks like your deity is breaking his
>>promise.  How many thousands of them die every day?
>>
>>Read the description in the latest _Time Magazine_ of what physically
>>happens to a person as he starves to death, then try to tell me that
>>you worship a loving god.
>
>Physical pain, and finally death, are insignificant compared to the joy of
>knowing God!  Suffering within God's will purifies the soul and communicates
>to ther world the surpassing value of the spiritual over the physical, the
>eternal over the temporal.

Ah, then your god is justified in torturing people mercilessly here on
earth, as long as he gives them a very happy life after they die?  I
know of few deaths as simply horrible as death by starvation.

What about the fact that many of those people do not even know your
god?  Do you adhere to your Bible's premise that "the only way to God
is through the Christ"?  If so, then realize that they are suffering
helplessly now and will be condemned to hell when they lose their
battle with life.  If not, then who are you to re-interpret the Bible?

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Jews Hate Proselytizing
Date: 13 Dec 1992 22:33:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Edgar Pearlstein writes...


#bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes, in part:
#
#>                                             In Judaism, even the
#>atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
#>in the world to come.  
#
#     I wasn't aware that in Judaism there is a "world to come".  
#     Can you supply a reference?

    While it is not the focus of Jewish belief, there have been a
    number of references to a hereafter.  I direct you to a quite
    interesting discussion of this in the book "Basic Judaism" by
    Milton Steinberg.


#>                                                           As the
#>concept of God in Judaism is one of a loving God, ......
#
#     Since when?  As I read the Old Testament, the god shows a lot
#     more cruelty, vindictiveness, and vanity than love.

    I can think of nothing approaching the level of cruelty which
    is the Crucifixion.  From a Jewish standpoint, it is perverse
    and sadistic.  To kill a man for the sins of others is unjust
    no matter what the pretext for such a murder might be, from a
    Jewish perspective.

    Furthermore, the Torah is the story of the development of man
    as a moral being.  Just as children through proper upbringing  
    cease being little sociopaths to become moral beings, so grew
    the human race.  And, as parents are sometimes stern, God has
    been stern.  But the basic message in Judaism is that a moral
    way of life is what God seeks from each of us.  And the Torah
    is regarded by Jews as the source of all that one needs to be
    a moral person.  From the Jewish perspective, if some atheist
    behaves in a loving and just manner towards humanity, then he
    or she is more favored in God's eyes than the self-proclaimed
    'religious' person who is intolerant, or cruel, or dishonest.
    And we have seen an ocean of them in recent years.

    I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with Christianity
    as a religion.  My only point is to illuminate the reasons we
    Jews are so resentful of proselytizing.  Just because we Jews
    find Christian dogma bizarre does not mean that it is somehow
    wrong.  It is simply that Christianity is, in so many ways, a
    reverse of Judaism.  It is my hope to show proselytizers what
    they are asking Jews to accept, and why, to us, it remains so
    unacceptable.


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23593 alt.atheism:23359 alt.slack:3409
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:01:52 GMT
Organization: not very organized
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec11.183641.3054@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.

	What justification do you have for the above proposition?

	Or, is it an empty statement, as I suspect?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec11.080822.22069@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:23:47 UTC

In article <1992Dec11.080822.22069@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.164534.1961@digi.lonestar.org> 
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>In article <fWhUSv3@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>They didn't of course. You can try the same experiment with a young
>>>child who understands some language but very little of the knowledge of
>>>good and bad (ethics or morality). Place a big cake in the middle of an
>>>empty room and place the child in the room and point out the cake and
>>>tell the child, "do not eat this cake or you will die!" Leave the room
>>>and come back in fifeteen minutes and see what happens.
>>Would you really consider doing such a thing to a child for the sake
>>of a psychological experiment?  Sometimes these discussions of life
>>and reality become totally removed from both life and reality.  The 
>>sad thing is that there are probably people who would do such a thing
>>to demonstrate a point.
>Ain't people nasty eh?  I've even heard about one group of people
>who tell their kids that there is some torture chamber somewhere
>that the kids will wind up in for eternity if they don't follow
>some incomprehensible set of rules while they're alive.  Then
>the kids go through their _entire lives_ scared out of their wits
>that they might land in this place!  And just to put the icing on
>the cake in this diabolical psychological experiment, they tell the
>kids that the dude who created this torture chamber is benevolent!
>Since one generation of people did not provide enough data to draw
>any meaningful conclusions, the victims of the experiment were told
>to apply identical psychological torture to their own offspring, thus
>minimizing the amount of intervention required by the scientists
>conducting the experiment.
>Preliminary results are in, and, as expected, it turns out that the
>kids do indeed grow up to become miserable and confused adults, whose
>only small satisfaction in life seems to be trying to make other people
>miserable and confused.  The experiment is due to terminate soon, but
>you may have to wait a few million years for intelligence to evolve
>again before getting a full report on its final stages.

This is just horrible! Are we all in agreement that this type of thing
should stop? We can make this a better world can't we? Maybe some type
of federal 12-step program for people like this might help? Haven't we
been hating ourselves long enough?
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Zarathustra speaks! was Luke, Derrida, Papists, etc.
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:45:22 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Err.. I made a mistake with the subject line of this followup, so
here it is again. As much as I'd like to take credit for the Zen-like
"<None>" it appeared under the first time, I'm afraid it was an act of the
hand of God, or whoever it is that handles (seemingly?) inconsequential events.

In article <fWIvyn9@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.180711.9630@ac.dal.ca> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In fact, there is no way to know whether or not you are dreaming at this
>>moment. (sound familiar? :) 
>>I have spoken! :)
> 
> If one finds oneself in a dream, how would one WAKE UP?
> 
 Awakening is realizing that yes, in fact, you are dreaming. As a friend of
 mine puts it: Freedom is recognizing what controls you. Not in a political
 sense or a metaphysical sense, but in an experiential sense. Freedom is
 realizing that the dream that you thought was the absolute state of
 affairs is in fact just a daydream...and that you don't have to live as if
 it were absolute if you don't want to.  
 
 (note: This isn't what I was getting at in the quoted post...if in fact
 all perception is the dream of some unknown being, who is dreaming that it
 is you, then the dream I mention in this post is kind of a dream-within-
 the-dream)
 
 Speaking of Zarathustra (I'm a Zarathustra boosta!), he said the exact same
 thing as the above in Nietzsche's book:
 
 "Man is something to be overcome! What have you done to overcome him?"
  
 Z is getting at two birds with one stone, though - 1. "Man" is really
 just an idea, a concept in your head which you have overlaid on
 your experience of yourself and your fellows. 2. Since you have identified
 yourself with that concept, in part, "man" is _you_, and what have you
 done to overcome your own greatest limitation, your infatuation with
 concepts?
 
 Sean Hartigan 
 hartigan@ac.dal.ca
 
 Dream delivers us unto dream; and there is no end to illusion. (Emerson)
  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:15:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.195110.4076@cs.cornell.edu>,
rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
|>In article <1-g20t_@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
Norman Johnson) writes:
|>|> In article 20330@cs.cornell.edu, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick
Moten) writes:
|>|> >For you who denounce Christ,  
|>|> >
|>|> >What does it mean to be a Christian?
|>|> >
|>|> 
|>|> Perhaps it would help if you could tell us all who it is you
|>|> think is "denouncing" Christ? I have never seen anyone do this
|>|> on this group myself.
|>|> 
|>|> Perhaps article quotations would help, so we (or at least I :) ) can
|>|> see how and why these folx denounce Christ.
|>|> 
|>
|>I'm trying to find out the criteria people use to qualify someone as a
Christian.
|>
|>Rod
|>
                   
If they answer "yes" to the question "Are you a Christian", I
would say that they are a Christian.  (Of course there are
different TYPES of Christians, many of whom know very, very
little about the Gospels.)

Two questions for you, Rod:

1) What do you think is "denouncing" Christ?
   (see above)

2) What criteria do you use to qualify someone as a Muslim?

Brian /-|-\
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:49:17 -0800
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.ens.tek.com

In article <77785@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>'sin' via _The Scribnew-Bantam Engish Dictionary_ is defined as:
>n.      1. willful breaking of a divine law or violation of the
>           principles of morality;
>        2. any serious fault or offense;
>vi.     3. to commit a sin.
>
>Which of these do you believe do not exist (the first or second
>part of 1, number 2, or number 3) ?  Depending on how you answer,
>do the others exist?


  In the same breath I'd say all of them and at the same time, 
none of them. At any rate "we" are the ones who needs to be 
forgiving others. If we can get to a place where we can do that,
miracles will freely flow.

  One need not be a Christian for this to happen. As a lover of the
Divine, I see my Beloved God within ALL peoples and as such are all
the sons and daughters of God. Now if we only treated each other
as such.



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: God etc
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:51:42 GMT
Summary: do tell ...

In article <TORKEL.92Dec13170605@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
writes:

>Surely all this business about the universe being created,
>about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
>irrelevant to what religion is about?

Could be; what do YOU say religion is about?

-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@panix.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
(please note address)			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc