HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Summary: algorithms
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:35:43 GMT

In article <C0IFtK.5s2@world.std.com> pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
writes:

>Well, they had faith in the coming messiah person. Heb 11. And there is
>no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved.

So -- perhaps the others invoke call by reference or value, rather
than name?

I REALLY do not understand this eagerness to conduct NOW a judgment that
we are (e.g. in the parable of wheat and tares) told NOT to engage in.
Perhaps the husbandman does know which of the plants "should" be rooted
up and which are the good harvest -- maybe it is only a "practical"
difficulty that advises him to wait till the harvest.

But this theologizing that WANTS to read any given verse (Paul here
cites Revelation) as having compelling interpretive necessity to be
read as damning <some conveniently specified group> strikes me as
comletely condemned itself in the scenario at Judgment Day on which
both those who CALL on the Lord are denied and others are surprised
that the Lord recognizes them (given that they did not conduct their
lives "recognizing" Him.)

Such petty, theologizing, self-interested dichotomies are the kind
of thing that (IMO) got Jesus mad at the Pharisees.  Who appointed
YOU maliki yaum id'din?

Perhaps, if you were not so eager to count yourself among the saved,
you would be less certain of the criteria that will be used?  There
is NOWHERE in scripture a "descision procedure" that you can use to
decide who is saved and who is not.  This, at the heart, is the basic
kernel of Martin Luther's and Jean Calvin's Protest.  Once you can
set aside the agony of "following a rule" you can, maybe, learn to
put your faith and trust in God, instead of eager condemnations (by
exclusion of others who don't do as YOU want) of those you do not
understand.

It is by no means a "certain deduction" from scripture, but I would
suggest you read "Not every one who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven" with an implicit parallel -- that some
will enter without having "known" Jesus in any way other than through
their "righteous" actions, as in Matthew 25:40.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/11/93   God's Promise in Psalm 37:25
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:03:40 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	I have been young, and now am old;
>	yet I have not seen
>	the righteous forsaken,
>	nor his seed begging bread.


	Then you have been blind.
	The 'righteous' are forsaken every day,
	unless you want to tell them they are not 'righteous'.
	Look at the devout homeless.
	Look at the God-fearing victims of AIDS.
	Look at the starving children
	to whom your god has never even made himself known.
	If you say that your god cares for those who worship him,
	or even for that which he has created,
	then you either live in a fantasy,
	or lie.


-- 
_/_/_/  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
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:05:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>OK, let me take the position of a Christian, and suggest that the
>following statement is a logical one, based on the rule if A could do
>B, than A is a A because A needs to do B in order to qualify to belong
>to the set of As:
>
>Mark 16:17-18:  "And these signs shall attend those who
>    believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak in new
>    tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
>    thing, it shall not hurt them..." 
>
>So this is the logical statement, those who believe (A) need to do (B)
>in order to authenticate themselves to belong to the set of As.
>
>If this statement is a logical statement, then we have an authentic
>Christian one, and I withdraw my critique about Christianity and logic
>(instead of my point that Christianity is founded upon faith, faith
>and faith).
>
>So, the other point is, that if this supposedly logical statement
>is valid, it shows that most of Christians are not Christians at all,
>and we have an even better measurement to shake out the real ones from 
>the false ones. So if you want to justify your faith, you have the tool!
>
>Now, if anyone that is a true Christian objects to this logical
>measurement,
>it implies that logic can't be applied to Christianity, looking from
>my point of view. If you don't agree upon the premises, how could you
>then draw the final logical conclusion, true or false?

You picked a set of verses not found in the earliest and most reliable
manuscripts of Mark...it is beleived to be a later addition, and is so
marked in all but one of the Bibles I own.  NIV & NRSV both specifically
say that the questionable authenticity of the bracketed text is such that
one should not base any dogma or strong belief on it...

 -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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:27:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5113143@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-040193172623@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >So this is the logical statement, those who believe (A) need to do (B)
>    >in order to authenticate themselves to belong to the set of As.

>   I see that you're still going on about "logical statements" and the like,
> apparently grimly determined to learn nothing about logic. Were it not for
> your past record as an indefatigable babbler, I would think by now that
> you're putting us on.

Could we please stick to the issue, and stop ad hominem attacks, that
just shows that the other end can't justify the statements?

Let's give another example where I indeed agree that premises don't
matter concerning the final logical conclusion:

Tautologies - "God is eternal because God is eternal".
This is certainly false because you can't show that something is something
based on itself. BTW a classical medieval Christian logical flaw in the
reasoning.

Contradictions - "God is eternal so God is not eternal".
Here this is false as well, because something can't be and not be at
the same time.

I would like to know if you could present more similar logical constructs
based on a frame model, and then if Mr. Skinner for instance could map
his statement into one of the agreed models, then I indeed agree that
I was wrong. I don't mind learning the truth, and I agree, I don't know
logic, and I don't think anyone knows it either, because universals are
agreed assertions, and not plain truth that you could memorize from a book
and believe in (faith again).


Kent

-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.23
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 12:42:17 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 23

                        yotsyamanan avekse 'ham
                          ya ete 'tra samagatah
                      dhartarastrasya durbuddher
                         yuddhe priya-cikirsavah

  
yotsyamanan--those who will be fighting; avekse--let me see; aham--I;
ye--who; ete--those; atra--here; samagatah--assembled;
dhartarastrasya--for the son of Dhrtarastra; durbuddheh--evil-minded;
yuddhe--in the fight; priya--well; cikirsavah--wishing.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	Let me see those who have come here to fight, wishing to please
the evil-minded son of Dhrtarastra.

  
                                PURPORT

	It was an open secret that Duryodhana wanted to usurp the kingdom
of the Pandavas by evil plans, in collaboration with his father,
Dhrtarastra. Therefore, all persons who had joined the side of
Duryodhana must have been birds of the same feather. Arjuna wanted to
see them on the battlefield before the fight was begun, just to learn
who they were, but he had no intention of proposing peace negotiations
with them. It was also a fact that he wanted to see them to make an
estimate of the strength which he had to face, although he was quite
confident of victory because Krsna was sitting by his side.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:19:40 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec31055202@bast.sics.se>
	<ksand-040193164244@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-040193164244@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >Agree, and as long as we can't agree upon the validity of a premise, then
   >I don't see a point to agree upon a the validity of a logical construction.

  Allow me to adjust your terminology a bit: the truth of a premiss, the
logical validity of an argument.

  First, your present remarks make nonsense of your previous attacks on
Gregg Skinner's argument, since that argument was precisely that there *is*
logically valid reasoning in Christianity.

  Second, there are very many cases in science as well as in
philosophy or everyday life where agreement on the validity of an
argument is both useful and important, whether or not the truth of the
premisses are agreed on.  I'm sure you can figure this out for
yourself.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Distribution: usa
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:14:32 PST

In article <1ikq7sINN43j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

[stuff deleted showing that the children of the rainbow curricula DOES
endorse homosexuality, as opposed to stopping at teaching respect and
kindness to all people]
>
>Despite what some of the gay posters have claimed, these books 
>do more than teach that "queers exist".  The school curriculum book 
>itself says that it is meant to do more than that.  
>
>Walter Smith
>smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
>
cheers, cheers. i bet we don't here that very much in the media do
we (unless you consider Rush's show to be media)?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 07 Jan 93 11:36:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan7.022632.20135@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.031111.3890@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>My understanding is that a being which is omnipotent is capable of [has the
>>required attributes & features which are required to do] *ANYTHING*.
>>Therefore my understanding is that God *can* do anything. What God actually 
>>*chooses* to do is independent from what he *can* do.
>
>You realize the consequences of this, when taken to its logical conclusion,
>don't you?
>
>Briefly, the end result is that everything is the way God wants it to be.
>This includes the state of man, the existence of suffering, etc.  All of
>this follows from omnipotence + omniscience, which effectively means that
>God makes no mistakes in planning (omniscience) and no mistakes in
>execution (omnipotence).
>
>Of course, omnipotence effectively implies also that indirection with respect
>to achieving goals is unnecessary.  

Just as a side note, remember that 'unnecessary' does not mean 'will not
happen'. IE...
 
>If God wants something, God can get that
>something directly 

...if, of course, He chooses to. He could also choose to get
it indirectly.  For example, He could choose to have parts of
His plan carried out by His creation itself. 

>(if you wish to restrict the definition of ommipotence to
>something that makes sense, I think the minimum restriction necessary is that
>God cannot do something that breaks a definition, which means that in the case
>of two or more mutually exclusive alternatives, God gets only one of them).

I agree, omnipotence doesn't mean that nonsense is possible.

>This also has some rather nasty implications for most Christians, namely that
>Jesus was totally unnecessary for the salvation of mankind.  

Of course He was. Heck, salvation was unnecessary. So was sin. So was
pleasure. So was love. So, for that matter, is the existence of you, me,
the universe, and everything (God has no need to create).

>If God wanted
>man to be "saved", God would have set things up such that it would never be
>necessary to begin with.

Yes, I agree, this is all quite true. What's the problem?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:26:45 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.061502.7103@news.acns.nwu.edu>, autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.192340.9601@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >He made us in His image.  He
|> 
|> More likely and plausably, we created him in ours.  What makes humans so damn
|> special that a supposed God would create us in his image?  I think it's just
|> human self-importance that impels believers to the "Man in God's image"
|> philosophy, in an attempt to explain away our insignificance in the grand
|> scheme of the universe.
|> 
We were meant to be his companions.  God gave us the potential to share in
His kingdom as his heirs, that's what it means to be a child of God.  He does 
this out of love.


|> >What more do you want
|> >God to do?  
|> 
|> Come here in front of me and prove to me that he exists.  Maybe he's just to
|> chicken to do so......
|> 
Where is the faith then of doing so?  In fact, God has presented himself before
people in the personage of Jesus Christ.  He performed many miracles in front
of mortal eyes, even raising people from the dead . . . and still, the people
would not believe in Him.  I don't think it would be any different today.  If
God were to come down in person and do all the things He could do, there would
still be people who would not believe.  We are a very stubborn, stiff-necked
race.  Jesus presented himself as the Son of God and they crucified him. 

God does exist.  Evidence of His handiwork is all around you.  


|> >He has gone the second mile for us but most of us still refuse to 
|> >meet Him halfway.
|> >
|> I haven't ever seen him do anything for us. 
|> 
For starters, He gave you life.  The creation of sentient life is still beyond
the understanding of mankind and it will always be so.  Only God can create life.
He offers you salvation and eternal life.  All you have to do is accept Jesus 
into your life.  The price for sin has already been paid in full.  It is up to
each and every one of us to cash in on it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:49:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.212544.8542@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.172957.18493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.161852.8450@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>>>I THINK CHRISTIANITY IS BAD FOR A PERSON'S MENTAL HEALTH.
>>>It seems reasonable to ask Ms. Hausmann to demonstrate that
>>>Christianity is bad for a person's mental health.  (She says more in
>>>her post, but the demonstration is not complete.  I'd like to respond
>>>to the argument in its full form.)
>>I agree with Mr. Skinner. Sounds like bullshit to me.
>>Ms. Mausmann could start by showing that there was a higher rate
>>of mental illness among Christians.
>Does anybody around here actually bother to read and think
>about some of the more interesting articles posted here?
I try to. I followed this thread back as far as my expire
time permits. I found at least one original argument by Ms.
Hausman where she made this assertion. It still sounds
like bullshit to me. And I'd still like to see proof.

>Like, for example, Stephen Doe's _THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER_
>series, from which this thread's title originated?
It's expired at my site. I just turned on news a couple days ago.
Ms. Hausman's article contains no reference to that one.

Do you have a point, Doug?
Did Mr. Doe provide the proof that Ms. Hausman has not?
-Ekr
  
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:49:37 GMT


 
 
"O true believers, take not the Jews and the Christians for your
friends. They cannot be trusted. They are defiled - filth."
  Sura 5:55
 
"Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their
persons a higher rank than those who stay at home....The
unbelievers are your sworn enemies....Seek out your enemies
relentlessly....You shall not plead for traitors....Allah does
not love the treacherous or the sinful."
  N.J. Dawood, "The Koran", pg.212-222
 
"O believers, when you encounter the unbelievers marching to
battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso turns their back to
them, unless withdrawing to fight again or removing to join
another host, he is laden with the burden of God's anger, and his
refuge is Gehenna - an evil homecoming!"
  A.J. Arbury, "The Koran Interpreted", pg.198-199
 
"Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you shall find
them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with
every kind of ambush".
  J.M. Rodwell, "The Koran", pg.471
 
 
Many others can be given.
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: John Birch Society...
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:09:31 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan6.185535.19187@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF) writes:
>
>BTW, all the information about the situation in Eastern Europe that appears
>on TV and in the newspapers and magazines in the US is _most_ _foully_
>_distorted_. Who does it? Who profits from it? Maybe, the power in the
>US has already been secretly seized by Commies? &@} (big, wicked, piggish
>grin)

My point.





-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:17:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.130916.13803@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>(5:51)" O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians
>for your friends and protectors:
[remainder deleted]
>So what does this verse mean?
>Does it mean that we Muslims are prohibited by God to have
>friends among the Jews and the Christians?

It certainly sounds like it.  (Nor does this "better" translation sound any
better then the "incorrect" one.)

>Verse (5:57) explains it better:
>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>(5:57)" O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors
>those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, - whether
>among those who recieved the Scripture before you, or among
>those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith
>(indeed)."

So this says that, in addition to Jews and Christians being prohibited as
friends to Muslims, those who mock Islam are also prohibited.  Are you trying
to claim that because this verse also bars those who mock Islam, the other
prohibitions no longer count?

>|> "Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their
>|> persons a higher rank than those who stay at home....The
>|> unbelievers are your sworn enemies....Seek out your enemies
>|> relentlessly....You shall not plead for traitors....Allah does
>|> not love the treacherous or the sinful."
>|>   N.J. Dawood, "The Koran", pg.212-222
>I've seen this verse before meaning something like that but what is your 
>point??
>Should we love our enemies as the Christian Serbs love us Muslims in Bosnia,
>Sandjak and in Kosova????

This is equivocation.  If "enemies" means people who act like the Serbs in
Bosnia, I would have no problem with you not loving your enemies.  But the
passage itself does not define "enemy" that way.  Instead, it defines "enemy"
as unbeliever.  I certainly hope that you would not treat me like the Serbs
are treating the Bosnian Muslims just because I am an unbeliever.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 10 Jan 1993 06:22:24 UTC

In article <1inem1INNdbp@hp-col.col.hp.com> 
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
>> If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.
>Is it a matter of free will to accept or deny this delusion?  ;-) 

YES!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan