HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:19:24 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.175235.15512@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> Kent Sandvik directs a question to me,
> 
> >what do you think are the core issues when moral values
> >break apart amongst God fearing Christians?
> 
> I have already noted that I am not interested in discussing moral
> values and athiests.  Neither am I motivated to discuss moral values
> and God-fearing Christians.

But the rest of us are, we are not interested in dealing with 
personal vendettas. So to continue, I'm interesting to know how
Christians deal with the message dear Jesus had about judging
other people concerning their moral values. This was for instance
quite evident during the recent presidental elections, where the
other part used this as one of the few weapons he had.

To refresh everyone's Christian doctrine background, here's
what Jesus himself said:

MAT 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.

MAT 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

MAT 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

MAT 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

MAT 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

For instance, Mr. Skinner, how does this relate to issues dealing
with people that are keen to define how moral other human
beings are. Is Jesus maybe wrong?

> > Actually, this will lead back to the core issue
> >of Christians provided food and shelter, but more about this later.

> I've lost track of how many times I've corrected Mr. Sandvik's
> revisions of Jesus' claim.  For the sake of clarity, I'll restate it.
> 
>    Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and
>    all these things [food and clothes, from the context] will
>    be given you.

So what happened with the poor people of the Donner party, for 
instance?

> I have been promised that the folly in this claim will be made clear
> to me.  In that discussion I am interested.  I do hope the discussion
> will not again involve the red herring of billions of Chinese who are
> well-fed.

So let's stick to the case of the Donner party! I'm just now investigating
the issue of martyrs that died of malnutrition, but due to lack of 
time (too much work just now) I have not had time to go to the library
for some more background information.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:10:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.172155.15183@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>As a result of his participation in this thread, the case that Mr.
>Sandvik recognized his error is more compelling than when we began.
>He wrote, "...he should also state that I in my private email
>conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of my statements
>concerning logic."  It follows that he had recognized his error.
>
>I don't mind saying it would be very easy for Mr. Sandvik to nullify
>my argument that he is not morally sound.  He could simply acknowledge
>his earlier logical errors.

Now I am more puzzled.  The above quote certainly sounds like acknowledgement.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christmas
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:09:53 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <75901@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1el6sfINNhal@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>Everyone celebrates Christmas now.  It is a national holiday, no longer
>>purely religious. 
>
>This is true.  But the religious tones are still very strong.  Why do
>you think we have this season?  Is it not because of the greatest gift
>of all - Jesus the Christ, the Savior of the World?

No.  It is because a bunch of heathens insisted on celebrating the
winter solstice, and the early proselytisers, who were tying themselves
in knots trying to sell their religion to them, said `what the hell,
let's say it's the birthday of Jesus, who cares anyway'.

And we like holidays, don't we?  Pretty much any occasion will do.

>>most people now ignore any religious significance the holiday once had.
>
>Oh.  Why is Christmas and Easter the peak attendance days in the church?

Probably because that's when the service is least boring.  Actually,
even an atheist may choose to attend a Christmas or Easter service out
of sheer curiosity.  I've done it sometimes.  Still, it doesn't mean
that most people go to church, just that more people do than on any
other day.  Which is not saying much.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:39:17 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <BxBtMy.CGs@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <25OCT199220165792@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...
>>Do the Mormon's worship a different God from the rest of mainstream
>>Christianity?  Do we worship a different Jesus?  Let us put this stupid dispute
>>to rest.
>> 
>>Yes!  Yes!  A thousand times yes.  We worship a different God.  We preach a
>>different Jesus.  We are not the same religion as you fundamentalists.  If you
>>are Christian, then we are not.
>

John puts it strongly, as usual, but he is right.  Each person can
only speak for him or herself, but I certainly can not worship
any God who condemns the bulk of the human race (his own creations,
no less) to hell, including innocent children, for not believing
in "the right Jesus".  I can't worship any God who would condemn anyone to
eternal torture *regardless of their sins*.  I wouldn't do that
myself even for someone as evil as Hitler.  Most enlightened humans
recognize torture as something beyond the pale of justice, yet here
we have this supposed God that uses it as a routine punishment,
for even the slightest sins, and calls that justice.  Yes, I recognize
that I am a sinner, but no, I don't think I am deserving of the
punishment the fundamentalists have in mind for me.  The God I worship
is engaged in a struggle to prevent such suffering.  Because humans
are free to make their own troubles, He isn't entirely successful,
but the idea that God would turn away from anyone at any time because
they don't quite believe in "the right Jesus" is repugnant.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.180839.24740@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov16.182719.4513@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>>> 	Not necessarily good ones. I was a terrorist. 
>
>>Just an interesting observation, if you maintain that you were
>>a Lutheran terrorist, it does not automatically imply that Lutherans
>>create terrorists. 
>
>	I was an atheist. 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

  This is interesting, Lutherans are also atheists. Interesting form
  of logic. Andreas has bored us several times with his conversion story,
  but now he adds to the story yet again, he was in time's past an
  athesitic terrroist and now because he believed in the bible he is
  no longer either a terrorist nor an atheist, he has eveolved into
  a Jehovah's Wittness, albeight a radical JW.

  Would it be logical to assume that the logical outcome of atheistic
  terrorist is to become radical JW's. No I don't think so. Andreas
  is almost one of a kind, (well there is Tony Rose :-) )

  Andreas should not be take as representive on any other JW, any more
  than tony should be representive of any group Christian, Fundamentalist,
  or JW...




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:44:11 GMT

>> ...humans are *selfish* by nature.  viz.  Put lots of them
>> together in concentrations and rot from hell compounds on itself.
>> Look at Taipei, Bangkok, Manhattan, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Sodom...

In article <ksand-211192124109@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>I assume you have an explanation why all the Chineese
>have free medical services, and no public religion. I'm deliberately
>leaving
>out the issues of democracy, however we are just now dealing with...

In a different post I began remarking about *Chinese* religion.
I expect it to hit the fan if anyone else notices.  But here, you
also mention free medical services in China.  I'm not sure if I care
much for what I hear of Chinese medical services.  I have discussed
this with many many
Chinese people but I've never been in mainland China myself.  Thus,
I would not know much first-hand about Chinese medical services.  I'm too 
used to some fairly rapid service (if you can afford it) here in the U.S.
[But Clinton's president soon!  Cheap and universal health care, 
here we come!  He promised right?  I can't wait!   :-)  ]
People (doctors included) here in the US tend more to care about the 
personal well being of others (or patients) than their counterparts 
in China.

And another observation...I don't think hospitals in China are named 
"Good Samaritan," or "St Elizabeth's," or "Holy Cross," etc...
I don't think that kind of care is in mind within the Chinese 
institutions..

Terence


ps  the following is purely light-hearted and immaterial wrt the 
above discussion

>While you are so keen to compare population sizes with social
>welfare,
oops.  I really meant to compare population *densities*.  My stomach
started growling and I began thinking about something else...

>>    It's hard to find any Scandenavian restaurants around here.  :(
>>    It's not like Chinese restaurants which are practically at every street
>>    corner around the world.
>
>Hehe! I guess that's a serious social problem, then.
yep.  I think it's a gastronomic social problem. ;)
I like Norwegian food.  It's a real bummer that it's so hard to find.
To make things worse, I have no clue what Finnish food it.  Is there
anything you don't have to first thaw-out before eating in Finland?

Here's a little joke to shed some light on one facet of what I think
to be the "Chinese religion:"

How many times will a Chinese laugh if you tell him a joke?
answer:  3.  #1 when he hears it; #2 when you explain it to him;
and #3 when he gets it.

Whatever the philosophy or religion is, it revolves around
being oxymoronic more than average.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Looking for/Selling Books
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:11:23 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


1] I'm looking for a copy of the "Chicago Bible", which includes
Goodspeed's translation of the NT.  This has been out of print for some
time, so if you know where I can find a copy, I would appreciate a pointer.

2] I also have extra copies of the following books which I am looking to
sell (both books are brand new and are being sold at cost):

  Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplemental volume (IDBSup): $27.

  Farmer's book on the Synoptic Problem: $18.

(plus, say, a buck each for postage).


Thanks
Nichael
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:52:47 GMT

In article <ksand-151192201825@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>Sigh. You are just now dealing with a morally sound man that does not
>exactly belong to any of the current religious orders. And I'm not
>killing people on the streets. If you still want to map morality
>to religion, you should please explain why the Christian church
>burned witches in my home town 400 years ago, and why it seems 
>Christian missionaries have a keen following to spread out Western
>diseases all around the world, killing innocent victims, including
>babies.

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 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.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> 
	<1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:08:43 GMT


Ken Arromdee lobs another slow pitch over the plate:

>In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>>God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
>>as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.

>What's the difference between these two?

It's the difference between controlling people by fear alone, and
using a combination of fear and guilt.  The combination technique
enables one to have a more productive relationship with the "client"
over a longer period of time.

Compare:  "This will hurt me more than it hurts you."  (Hint: It won't.)


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Bxv7FI.9E7@cmptrc.lonestar.org> <1992Nov17.163018.790@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:34:19 UTC

In article <1992Nov17.163018.790@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <Bxv7FI.9E7@cmptrc.lonestar.org> 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence) writes:
>>To the Christian (the Jews don't have a hell, the lucky people), Hell is
>>the absence of God. Satan in NOT the opposite of God, but the absence.
>>Big difference.
>Huh? To my knowledge this is not true in either tradition. 

I think you might be right, but I don't think the Christians have quite
worked out exactly who Satan is.

>The OT and NT both speak of a literal Satan. In the OT, he's the prosecuting
>attorney of the divine court.

Well, sort of. Satan is a Hebrew word, it is the word for adversary or as you
say, prosecuting attorney. Somehow the Christians got confused, probably
Paul, and thought Satan was a name. As the poster above says, there is no
Hell and no Satan, Devil, Lucifer in Judaism. Judaism is pure monotheism.

>In the NT, he is more or less the opposite of God.

Well, now we are on rough ground. If Satan is truly the opposite of God, then
we have dualism, not monotheism. The concept of Lord of the Underworld is
Greco/Roman. The concept of Lord of Light and Lord of Dark is Persian
dualism. Paulist Christianity represents the combination of Hebrew monotheism
plus the Greco/Roman Lord of the Underworld and God as man (Jesus) plus the
Persian duality plus some pagan concepts like a Holy Trinity. And who said
Paul wasn't a clever marketer.

By the way, are you aware of what the Devil's crime was? You see, God first
created the angels, including Lucifer, and He commanded, "bow to no one but
Me". Then He created man and He said, "Bow to man." Now, Lucifer and the
archangels refused to bow to man. They felt it was insulting to God and they
felt they caught God in a contradiction and perhaps He was testing them. So
the archangels who refused to bow to man, led by Lucifer, were sentenced to
Hell. And what is Hell? Hell is never being able to see He who they
loved again, to never again see God. Think about it. There's a lesson there
that many Christians fail to understand. So in a sense, a Christian could
claim that Satan is the absence of God. But then again, Christians tend
to claim all sorts of things.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:54:49 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>> Where in the Bible does it say that animals do not have souls?
>> For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that humans
>> DO have souls, and where is the nature of the soul described?
>
>The nature of the soul is thoroughly described in Bhagavad-gita and many
>other Vedic scriptures. The fact that humans (animals and plants too)
>have souls is also stated in the Vedas.

Gosh!  How do you survive, if you can't eat anything?  Or do you not
really mind killing things that have souls?

Do rocks have souls?  How about fire, does fire have a soul?  Why not?

-- 
_/_/_/  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: Jesus not a prophet, Son of God
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:09:12 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

This is in response to R. Pitts question on Surah 5:78 of the Qur'an as to
       what the term "they" in the sentence (yet see in what ways *they* are
       turned away) refer to:
          I did not quote the entire surah, nor the verses preceding 5:78,
          otherwise, this problem of identifying 'they' would not have arisen.
          I am sorry for this. The word 'they' in the verse does not refer
          either to Jesus or his mother, Maryam, but to Christians. Allah
          here is accusing the christians of how they are turned away when
          the truth of the matter concerning Jesus was that he was nothing
          more than a human being and a Prophet, the likes of whom had passed
          away before him. Yet christians claim divinity for Jesus|
  I also realised thru' our correspondence (with R. Pitts and S. Wiggins) that
  most western christians are unaware of the fact that Allah is the God of
  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and all humanity. Allah is not different from the
  Jewish concept of God. As a matter of fact, the old Syriac (Aramaic) term
  for God is Allaha. In Arabic, which is a semitic language and a sister langu-
  age to Aramaic the last letter 'a' is simply dropped. The Arab christians use
  the same term for refering to God (God the Father), of course, their underst-
  anding about the nature of God is quite different from Muslims and Jews.
  Another associated point: YHWH is not Jehovah, nor is it Yahway. No Jew knows
  how to pronounce it correctly, since the vowels were never put in the Torah.
  Whatever it is, YHWH means same God, or Elohim, or Elaha (or Eloh) or Allaha
  or Allah (it is simply one of the attributes of God).
---
Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:44:08 EST
 2Nov12.023121.22894@midway.uchicago.edu><1992Nov17.201910.8604@microsoft.com>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

Quite a number of times Josephus of the Ist century C.E. was brought up as
a historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All Biblical scholars
(with the exception of christian apologists or polemicists) concur that
the books of Josephus were tampered by early christians. One of the  early
christian historians, Origen, does not mention Jesus, but a century later
Eusebius, another christian historian, says that Josephus, a Jew, indeed
accepted Jesus as a Christ. And the copy that was produced by these christians
do show that several bracketed sentences were added to the manuscript.
Prof. S.G.F. Brandon in his book, Jesus and Zealots, like most other research-
ers simply conclude that Josephus's book as it stands today, cannot be cited
as a proof toward historical evidence of Jesus. I shall encourage interested
readers to read this book of Prof. Brandon.

--
Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc