HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:55:06 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <denmckinnon.2.722326957@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:

>Aside from 
>the fact that placing a concious entity outside of time seems incoherent to 
>me [ . . . ]

I think the way this point is dealt with is by saying that the mind of
God is not discursive.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:18:12 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

> Actually, I don't think any of those who replied to your original
> article with the questions thought that what they were doing was
> taking a test, or they wouldn't have done it.  We are here to talk (to
> lead discussion), not to take tests.  That's why this group is in the
> "talk" hierarchy.  Next time you want to test people, do it in one of
> the test newsgroups.  Or write directly to /dev/null.

The post said "Spiritual Intelligence Test" right at the top!

> >Why not fight, if you know you're right?
> 
> Fight?  Fighting takes a serious adversary, and you don't look like one.

I think you're just a chicken, boy! Bwak, Bwak, Bwak!

Sincerely,
Kalki "see you on the battlefield" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:44:01 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov18.045247.11607@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> Sigh.  You are just now dealing with someone who has been a full-time
> Christian missionary who hardly killed innocent victims.  But I probably
> did spread Western diseases to the East.  The U.S. is closer west than
> to the east of Europe you know.  :)  In your case, I suppose we have a
> non-religious type who's carried diseases Westward.  There are exceptions 
> to every subgroup you know; and my God, it is too
> easy to stereotype on ignorance.  viz.  the U.S. is a *Christian* nation
> therefore the Christian church is now also guilty for the murdering of
> thousands and thousands of Iraqis in operation Desert Storm. right?
> Well.  I suppose we can scapegoat *all* of the church for that one too.

I agree, and the point was that you can't map atheism or theism
directly 1:1 with morality in a society. I do think moral laws
follow their own agenda, in many cases we do have a religious
idea behind the law, in other cases (for instance the US Constitution)
we have higher ideals -- such as all men are equal -- that has
no real binding in a religion. We might argue that Christianity
to some degree supported this notion (all men are equal). However
the founding fathers also wanted to disconnect the moral laws
from the religious sects.

> >I still don't see how you could map a religious order to morality,
> >and even if you did, you might explain the rational behind not
> >cutting your beard. 
> 
> On the contrary, can the absence of morals be mapped to morality?
> And the beard thing...  I've meant to read this but still haven't
> gotten around to it.  I am quite skeptical of your interpretation of it.
> My gut feeling and speculation of how I would interpret it is simply
> not to "dress-up" in church in a way that would be plainly aristocratic
> in nature.  This would also account for the bit of wearing "clothes blended 
> of two materials."  In some places and at some times, these things 
> might intimidate the non-aristocratic.  It's probably a good idea.
> Jesus didn't show up in a three-piece suit and rarely were the poor and
> the sick seeking His comfort.  Dressing-up and putting on facades 
> should be reserved for Halloween.

I was referrering to the ancient Jewish laws of wearing beard (gee,
I'm growing one just now as well...), and the reason why Jesus
also had a beard, and to the notion that Jesus didn't want to
change any of the Jewish laws. It was Paul who did this.

Still, what's the moral value of wearing a beard?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:15:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221230.17969@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> In article <nyikos.722119966@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >In <1992Nov8.184806.26949@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> >>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>Well its clear that this citation of yours is
> >>intended to establish that you are AGAINST
> >>biblical principles, and what the BIBLE has
> >>to say about Slavery.
> >
> >Moses led the Israelites out of slavery.  Paul sent a slave back to his
> >master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
> >though it had been his own child, no?  What conclusions am I supposed
> >to draw from all this?
> YHWH(through Moses) provided the Israelites with a legal code
> that explicitly endorsed slavery. I also remember something like
> "Slaves, obey your masters" in one of the Pastoral Epistles.

   This was written to those who turned to Christ while still
   under Roman domination ... what happened ? The Roman empire vanished

> It would be hard to argue that the Bible is anything but pro-slavery.
> -Ekr

  The Bible tells us that there have been Nations that have ruled
  the planet and placed people in bondage

  In our lifetimes there are countries/nations who still feel
  the need to take what doesn't belong to them and force other
  peoples under their rule/control

  Should one think the bible is Pro-Slavery for telling us
  what man can do at his worst ? especially if we've witnessed it

  The Psalmist wrote of oppression and cried for the Lords deliverance,
  deliverance which always came (always does), and shouted praise
  to God for remembering those who trust in him 

  Today we cry, and when deliverance comes we forget to send back Praise

Chris

-- 

		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
                and adaptable 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Biblical error for the day
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:13:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



>There is little doubt that *this*, not Jeremiah, is what Matthew had
>in mind.  It is equally clear that this is no prophecy of Judas'
>betrayal of Jesus.


/(nyikos)

/Yes, but if one thinks of the words "fill full", it's not such a bad
/comparison.  Nowadays we would say, "Judas gave new meaning to the
/words of Zechariah."



No.

Your whole argument is based on semantic word play; taking "fulfill"
and turning it into "fill full", and then trying to pawn off the idea
that "fill full" actually means "put a new spin on".  You realize, of course, 
that this little word game is only possible in the English language.  

If your bible were in French, the words you would be reading
for "fulfill" and "fill full" would be "accomplir" and "remplir", 
respectively, which do not permit this little game of yours.

And, since the bible was not written in English (despite what many
fundamentalists believe), the original language does not permit this
semantic gymnastic trick, either.  The verb in the original manuscript 
speaks of "bringing to pass", "accomplishing".  Not of "putting a new
twist on a story".


/(nyikos)
/An even more obvious example of Matthew's is "Out of Egypt I have called 
/my son."  The "son" in the passage alluded to was a rebellious one, and
/Jesus is anything but rebellious towards his "Abba".  Again, however,
/one can easily say that the return of Jesus with his parents from 
/Egypt gave new meaning to, or "filled full", these old words.

This example does not defend your position.  Actually, it probably is 
a second example of Matthew taking a scripture out of context.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Nov17.235036.27187@digi.lonestar.org> <fVs9KXt@quack.sac.ca.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:16:59 GMT

In article <fVs9KXt@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

   gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
   >The argument over whether Christ or the Gospels or Paul state authoritatively
   >that Christ was the Son of God is less interesting than the way in which
   >Christ himself approached the issue.

   Jesus spoke in Aramaic and we don't have a record of his speaches in
   Aramaic so we have no idea what he himself actually said. Case closed.
   For all we know, the Christian gospels in Greek may have been written
   or edited by Paul and so we are dependent on Paul's history of Jesus
   since there are no other accounts of Jesus, if he even existed as an
   actual historical figure.
-------
Unless Paul was telling the truth.  I'm not saying he does, I merely
accede the possibility.
BTW, why so skeptical that he actually existed?  Hahaha.  If one believes,
as I assume you do, that Paul's arguments are wrong, why do you also
have to question whether he even lived?  Won't the truth eventually come
out?
Also, supposing Paul did exist in the way presented in the NT (as we find
him writing about himself in several places), he was fluent in both
Greek and Aramaic, remember?  So were many of the disciples or their letter
writers.  One could reasonably assume that a fluent speaker of two languages
could come up with a close translation from one to the other.
-------
   >Another difficulty with the fundamentalist (and also main stream) view of 
   >Christ is the idea that knowledge and acceptance of him can only come 
   >within the bounds of this one life on earth.  The more I read and 
   >participate in this forum the more convinced I become that Christianity 
   >needs desparately to come to terms with the reality of repeated earth 
   >lives, and destiny (karma) as fundamental to the central principles of
   >Christianity, in other words to understand it in terms of the reality
   >of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

   Are you sure you don't mean reincarnation instead of resurrection?
-------
Yeah.  Reincarnation implies new body, new physical form.  Jesus, though
it was made complete and "glorified," kept his old physical body.  Remember
the nail scars shown to Thomas?  He didn't come back as a cow.  And,
reincarnation implies a progression of continuing life essence, through
one form to another, hopefully getting better and eventually achieving
oneness in bliss with the transcendent, etc. etc.  Jesus as God existed with
God the Father since the beginning (already at one, so to speak), and divested 
Himself of bliss for awhile (not because He did anything wrong).  He gave up
what reincarnation strives for, which is unheard of in that philosophy.
-------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:43:05 GMT

In article <fVDYgt1@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>jah write:
>>   />But, if Jesus was the son of
>>   />God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
>>   />since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?
>lungtt writes:
>>   /No record?  One of the Gospels reports of Jesus addressing God in Aramaic
>>   /kind of as "Daddy" not just "Father" in that spot where [I missed badly]
Do we still think there is no *Aramaic* record of what Jesus said?
I think the Gospels are littered with Aramaic quotes within the Greek.
I don't have a concordance handy and I can read neither Greek nor Aramaic
so I'm not even going to try to name a spot anymore.  :-(  But the Mk 14:36
example is interesting because at least in NIV English, I see a footnote
here that says Abba is *Aramaic* for Father.  Even if it is a misquote,
why is it in *Aramaic* when we still claim there is no Aramaic record of
what Jesus said?  Besides, I don't know anyone who is absolutely certain that
Jesus' speech was restricted to Aramaic.

Terence

ps BTW, I have the Union Chinese version (and several more modern
Chinese language versions) and the Segond French version handy here.
In the Union Chinese version, Mk 14.36 is translated with the term <ba>
[It's funny how the affectionate term *Dada* is about the same in every 
single language.] which is totally informal compared to the <fu> that you find
in the Lord's prayer <Wo men tian shang de *fu*...>  [forgive me for spelling
mistakes in my pinying.  My keyboard here just doesn't have any Chinese 
characters on it. :-( ]  I have reason to suspect that the Union Chinese was
translated very much from the KJV [maybe that's why it's so difficult to read]. 
Incidentally, I think one popular Korean language Bible was translated from 
the Union Chinese version.  [Genesis, <Chuang shi ji> in Mandarin or 
<Ch'ang si ji> in Korean (shucks!  no Korean letters on my keyboard either!)
is identical practically word for word.]  On the other hand, the preface 
to the Segond
French version doesn't say anything about being translated from any *English*
Bible and claims that it was translated to French fairly directly from the
original language manuscripts available in the late 1980s.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:20:40 GMT

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

>In article <nyikos.721601879@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> 	How much would it cost to get your soul out of hell, if you raped 
>>>the Pope?
>>
>>It doesn't take a Catholic to give the answer: Nothing, if you repent.

>	So, I can rape all the women and young girls I want- I can kill as 
>many people as I want, as brutally as I want to- I can steal all that I want,
>And, I only have to honestly repent before I die to go to heaven

Didn't you say you went to a Lutheran school?  [Or are you someone else
than the person who wrote the >>> lines?]  Don't the Lutherans say anything
about repentance? 

But there is a catch.  According to the Catholic church, there are
alternatives to both hell and heaven, at least in the short run.
One is called "purgatory," and if one repents of the crimes which
Keith so enthusiastically writes about, but does not make proper amends for
them, one can expect a very long stint in purgatory, perhaps a lot more
unpleasant than earthly life.  That's what indulgences were about, getting
THIS punishment taken away, and I am in full agreement with Martin Luther
that the selling of indulgences is a scandal. 

For the benefit of others just tuning in: the >>> post had to do with
indulgences, and my other point was that they were irrelevant as to whether
one went to hell or not, in the view of the Catholic church.

BTW the NT is full of talk about
sinners repenting.  The only *specific* person I know of who is promised heaven
(paradise, according to many translations) in the NT by Christ is the
"good thief" who was crucified alongside him.

>- and yet, 
>if I was a honorable native american, who's culture never even heard of 
>Jesus, I would go to hell?

No, according to most Christians and all reputable Christian leaders.
See Romans 2:12-16.  I think it is an abomination how so many
otherwise sincere Christians talk as though they were oblivious of
this passage (and perhaps they are, having been told that the 
really important part of Romans is Chapters 3 thru 7, and maybe they
don't bother with the rest).

BTW the NT is full of talk about
sinners repenting.  The only person I know of who is promised heaven
(paradise, according to many translations) in the NT by Christ is the
"good thief" who was crucified alongside him.

>	So, when can I sign up and start the killing and raping?

>( Hey, I think I understand why so many Christians kill! )

Very funny, were it not so sad.  A person with this attitude is 
probably incapable of repentance for the things he is signing up for.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: The Pope on Sex and Heaven, the Full Quote
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:57:22 GMT

In article <lgqum0INNh74@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>So, let me see what it means what you are suggesting. 
>
>1. Since we won't eat, we won't have the digestive system in our body
>2. Since we won't have sex any more we won`t have the sex organs (uni sex bodies??)
>3. Since we don't have to walk, get rid of the feet and leggs
>4. Since we don't have to lift anything, no hands an arms
>5. Since we won't have blood, get rid of the heart
>6. Since we can exist in space, no lungs
>7. etc.
>
>Uh...why do we need to perfect body?????? What is wrong with this picture????

8. We don't need an appendix, so we can get rid of that.
9. We can can keep ourselves warm with clothing, so we don't need body
hair, so we can get rid of that.
10. etc.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: non-Christian Religions, was Truth in topic
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fVDUgpE@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov22.221832.909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 1992 06:50:55 UTC

In article <1992Nov22.221832.909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>ok...from ground-zero...
>(1) What is a *non-Christian* religion?

Whatever a Christian says is not.

>I think we also need to address:
>(2) What is a *Christian* religion?  

Whatever a Christian says is.

Me? Well you know what they say: Worlds above and worlds below, no one
in the world like __________. And did I ever tell you my dog she always
barking? Ah, but jus lyke Toto, sabe?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 21 Nov 1992 19:03:44 UTC

In article <lgqvulINNh74@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>1. Yes, human beings are composed of two parts, body and spirit
>2. No, our spirit is not God, its is ours (where did you get the idea that
>   our spirit is God??????)
>With brotherly love, 		Frank

OK, OK, I'm just trying to figure out your conception of the meaning of
Jesus. Now, it seems to me that this is what you are saying:

Item#1: Human Being
	Part 1: Human Body
	Part 2: Human Spirit
	At Human death, the Human Body dies but the Human Spirit lives
	and does something, what?

Item#2: Jesus
	Part 1: Human Body
	Part 2: God Spirit
	At Jesus death, the Human Body dies but the God Spirit lives and
	does something, what?

Some more questions:
1. Jesus does not seem to be 100% human since he lacks a human spirit.
2. Is God only God Spirit or are there other parts of God?
3. What is the difference between Human Spirit and God Spirit?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Fingerprint of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:25:42 GMT

bfc@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bryan Carpenter) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>    What do y'all think of Hugh Ross' _Fingerprint of God_?
>
>    Has anyone been able to cast doubt on the findings presented in this
>    book?
>
>
>What findings?  All he does is basically say "Here's how I've been able
>to reconcile what's in the bible with scientific discovery."  So what.

What do you conclude from this evidence?

>All kinds of babble can be reconciled with reality if you try hard
>enough.  It still doesn't mean the bible has any credibility as a source
>of knowledge about objective reality.

I just thought it was kindof strange how all of Christian thought, which is
about 2000 years old, coincides perfectly with what we know through science
only recently.  Specifically why do you say that the Bible has no
credibility?  I cannot think of any good reasons.

I think he makes it fairly obvious that both the religious community _and_
the scientific community try to fudge results to make them fit pre-conceived
notions.  He was not at all kind to young-earth creationists or any other
such nonsense, and the RC church took quite a beating to...  The point is
that the Bible has been declaring the truth about origins despite bad moves
by the church.

What do you think about the fact that he has shown that evolution is more
ridiculous given the currently accepted time frame (16.3 billion years) than 
creation?

What do you think about the evidence against oscillation?

>Kind of like when people thought that they absolutely had to believe in
>a flat, stationary earth because of what's in the bible.  When it became
>obvious that the earth was a ball moving through space, there was
>probably someone who came along and wrote a book about how the bible
>so clearly harmonizes with that reality.

But you see, the Bible does not say the earth is flat.  Religious leaders
wanted to believe that, so they asserted it without any evidence from the
Bible.  OK they had evidence, but not nearly of the quality that I feel Dr.
Ross has produced.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc