HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:22:22 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Aug25.203809.21222@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>>     Could you expand more on what you mean by "carnal Christianity"? The  
>>reason I ask is because from your personal testimony, it sounds like your  
>>perspective is basically evangelical Protestant. Many evangelical  
>>Protestants often use "carnal Christianity" as a code phrase for  
>>"Catholicism" (and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy as well). So, are you using  
>>this phrase in the above sense, or do you have something else in mind?
>
>I mean someone who hears and believes but does not do.

I view the notion of a "carnal Christian" as a bit of a misnomer.  The idea
that one can accept Christ as Savior but not as Lord and still be a
Christian is antithetical to the Scriptures.  The typical description of a
"carnal Christian" is not unlike the person in the parable of the soils,
where the seed fell on hard ground.  It sprang up quickly, but whithered
away in the heat of the day.  The "carnal Christian" is unable to sustain
his testimony in the face of temptation/trouble/persecution.  He is really
not a Christian, but only an abuser of the title, because he chooses to live
like a pagan.

I do not view the phrase "carnal Christianity" as a codeword for Catholicism.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:42:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <fRYJ6pY@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> Maybe I can shed some light on this. I am certain that the belief that
> one can BECOME God would be sufficient to prevent one from becoming
> enlightened or becoming ONE with God. You see the difference there,
> right? Any good Christian should recognize the thought of BECOMING God
> as the work of the Christian Devil. As for non-Christians, the idea of
> BECOMING God should appear as presumptuous. Becoming one with God or
> joining the Lord's Kingdom is not the same as becoming God. Now that
> said, realize that I am not the one, the one can only be you for
> yourself. The best have all been humbled and I am not as enlightened as
> the best. The idea of becoming God is not very humble.

See the excellent answer from a Buddhist concerning self-realization.
You know, all religions are not the same!

Cheers,
Kent
... as for atheist/agnostic thoughs, I do care shit about becoming
a God. Does that mean that I'm a Christian? According to your
earlier statements, yes. Sigh.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship (Buddhist perspective)
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:31:02 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




 Re: self-worship

The Buddha taught "anatman," that there is no such thing as the self. It seems
likely to me that if questioned on whether or not his aim was to become God,
one with God, realize Nirvana, etc., a true Buddhist would smile mysteriously
and say "There is no self to become anything, there is no becoming, and nothing
to become, neither is there any realization to attain. So what possible aim
could I have? <smirk>"   
                 
"There is no pain, nor cease in pain,
nor even wisdom to attain. Attainment, too, is emptiness."
 
- from the Prajna-Paramita Sutra  (Heart of Perfect Wisdom)
  
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14764 alt.atheism:15819
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:46:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug25.072640.306@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>
>Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...Evolution...
>

  Ok, Jim, here's your chance.  Over on talk.origins, there is a
  standing challenge for anyone to provide a coherent and more or
  less complete theory of creationism.  You must account for all of
  the observed data that is currently explained by evolution,
  preferably in a superior manner.  

  Or were you just ranting?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Hear the Freedom Train!
	<1992Aug29.022722.8719@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <fRUMSSQ@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<2509@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:00:16 GMT

And how can one open one's spiritual eyes, [BTW: the concept of spiritual
eye is Hindu, not Christian], ...

In article <2509@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> 
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
<Not Christian??!!  What saith the Scriptures?
<  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in
<  parables?
<  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the
<  mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
<  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
<  abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
<  hath.
<  THEREFORE SPEAK I TO THEM IN PARABLES: BECAUSE THEY SEEING SEE NOT; AND
<  HEARING THEY HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND.
<  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing
<  ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and
<  shall not perceive:
<  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
<  hearing, and THEIR EYES THEY HAVE CLOSED; lest at any time they should
<  see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with
<  their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
<  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
<  For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have
<  desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to
<  hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.  (Matt.
<  13:10-17)

---
For a moment there I thought there might actually have been evidence of a
Christian realizing a third eye, but I see that was a foolish thought on my
part. Traditionally, Christians have not been thinkers. I see no evidence here
to indicate a change. According to some beliefs, we will actually all gain a
third eye at some point in the near future. This is good for free thinkers, but
it is hitting the wall for salesmen and customers of the great free gift
gimick. The great free gift that only requires acceptance.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00412-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:10:43 GMT





I have not seen the posts on this subject before the one I am
replying to-- so if I say something that has already been said
or is irrelevant------just ignore me.


God is neutral, he is metaphorically compared to male qualities as well as
female qualities.

For example, There is a verse (sorry, I don't remember where--if need be I
can find it, though) in which God is described as watching over people just
as a hen watches over her chicks. This is obviously a female comparison.

Of course throughout the Bible he is "The Father"--- but one of the 
fundamental understandings of God is that 'he' transcends our understanding.

In other words, we can only understand something in relation to how it has
been presented in our own world. If a sphere passes through a two dimensional
world. The people in the 2d world only understand the object as being a circle
as opposed to a sphere.


Chris
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:17:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.212511.8879@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>
>Analogy:
(cute analogy about mortgages deleted)
>-- 
>John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
>emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
>			 is now right."

I really liked the parable about mortgages.  Here is another one:

At that time, a homeowner was relaxing in his abode.  A loan
officer from some non-specific bank came to the homeowner's
front door.

Loan Officer #1:  I have here a list of rules and regulations.
If you follow the rules, and apologize profusely when you don't,
I'll tear up the mortgage and you can live in your house
debt free, forever.

Homeowner:  But I don't have a mortgage on my house.
Go away. <SLAM!>

Soon, another loan officer approached the homeowner.

Loan Officer #2:  That other loan officer was completely 
wrong.  I really know how you can have your mortgage removed
permanently.  If you believe that the son of the bank owner
died so that all mortgages can be removed, even though there
is no good evidence that this is true, I'll tear up the
mortgage and you can live in your house debt free, forever.

Homeowner:  But I don't have a mortgage on my house.
Go Away.  <SLAM!>


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15502 alt.atheism:16431
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:59:08 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep03.012306.5865@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.715470175@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) writes:
>|>Jake Rose writes:
>|>
>|>>I can make up gods who are forgiving too, Stephen.  For example, Jumbo the
>|>>Flying Frog, who hops from planet to planet, has forgiven you for your sin
>|>>of disbelief in it.  There you are.  Counter that one.
>|>
>|>  well jumbo the flying frog didn't die for anyone.  if you say he did
>|>i cannot accept your authority because you aren't god.
>|>---                          
>|>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>|>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>|>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>|>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?" 
>             
>WHOA!!!! Did a GOD say that Jesus died for anyone?  Or was this written/spoken
>by a human?  (Don't say God spoke through the people, because Jake could
>easily say that the Frog was speaking through him!)
>If I am to only accept the authority of a god, then I can't use anything
>written/said by people.  I have never met a god, nor have I read anything 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't worry, you will!
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14765 sci.physics:13522 sci.chem:3220
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:33:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug24124956@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:

>     Which developed first, the eye or the lid?

My guess: the eye since fish have them but don't (?) have lids.

>     Then why do all so -called higher life forms engage in sexual repro-
>duction?

Recombination between the variants is faster by sexual reproduction.  It produces
more varieties faster; better chance to get good combinations that work.  Lots
of people have worked on this excellent question.

>     What did the viruses attack?

Most everything.  The more we learn about viruses, reverse transcriptase,
jumping genes and so forth, the more it seems they are closely tied to the
genetics and evolution of all organisms.

>     I really enjoyed your commentary, although I will readily admit I
>didn't follow all of it.

You have much reading to do.  I'd suggest a good book on molecular biology.

>     One problem I have with E. [evolution?] is the motive.  WHY does anything want
>to survive or develop further?  If it has no purpose or goal, why not
>just live the life of a low-life?

There need be no motive.  The ones that don't have a survival instinct
or don't simply want to survive - don't.  They die off, leaving the others
that do have the instinct.  No motive at all.  Do you wear a seat belt?
No?  Hmm... :-)  I'll bet everybody wears seatbelts a million years from
now (if we survive...)!

>     Many of the life forms around in the times of the dinosaurs lived through
>any environmental changes that occurred.  Aren't ANY of the so-called SIMPLE
>live forms around, when some simple forms today can survive freezing, etc.?

By that time I don't think anything was "simple" anymore.  E. coli, "merely"
4.7 million letters of genetic material has 2500 genes - it's a pretty snazzy
bug!  I'd guess that bacteria were already this complex long before the higher
forms evolved.

>     Why try to prove a theory by citing another theory, the RNA one?

The RNA hypothesis explains the old problem of what compound came first
DNA or protein?  If RNA could replicate, that puzzle is solved.  It leaves
the problem of the generation of the bases of RNA and their initial linking.

>This does not answer why it would strive to live and advance.  There is much
>more going against it.  Mutations, etc., tend to go to the worse.

There is no striving to advance in evolutionary terms.  The ones that do better
survive - that's all!
 
>     Surely any higher forms around at the time would have perished due
>to greater fragility.

So they died.  So?  It happened a bunch of times.

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Light
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:00:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


WOW!
Hey!  Look at this!
   No way!
No, seriously!  Turn around and just take a look at this!
   No, I like what I'm seeing here.
But that is just darkness.
   Yes, but I'm comfortable with it.
But this is light!
   I know.  I can see the reflections.
But that's nothing compared to this!
   I enjoy looking at the reflections.
But this is beautiful!
   What are you, some kind of fanatic?
You really should turn around.
   Are you judging me?  You are judging me aren't you?
This is incredible!  Everyone should see this!
   Hey!  I like what I have here.  I accept what you've got.  Just
    accept what I've got.
But this is IT!  What you've got is nothing!
   NOTHING!
I've got to get closer...
   YOU ARROGANT CLOSED-MINDED @*#*!!
   How can he say I've got nothing?  Why, I've looked this direction
    for over forty years!
   ...forty years!
   I'd think after forty years I should at least see _something_!
   Maybe I _should_ take a look.
   But what if it's not what I hope it is?  What if I'm disappointed?
   At least this way I can still have all this...
   NOTHING!
   Maybe just a peek wouldn't hurt.

   WOW!
   WHY DID I WAIT SO LONG!

   HEY!  TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!
      No way!  I like what I have here!

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:25:53 GMT

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

>>>It also
>>>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>>>to bring about the destruction of the planet.  I won't call their adherents
>>>fools, because many stood no chance, but I have no reservations about
>>>calling such "philosophies" evil.

Another poster replies:

>>Huh?  In what way is Christianity or Islam or Judasim "destroying the
>>planet"?  I would agree that any religion whose worship service
>>involves, say, dumping a few barrels of oil into the ocean isn't
>>really on the level, but fortunately I've never heard of such a thing. :)

[Mr. Graham]
>Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
>of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
>planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
>could manage it in a humane manner.

Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
exist regardless of the actions of humans.

>How do you suppose that opposition
>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?

When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
control population as well as anything mentioned above.  (Disclaimer:
this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
understand differing points of view.)
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Please send a copy of your response to g-skinner@uiuc.edu, as my
newsfeed will unreliable for a short time.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.082509.5855@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
[In talk.religion.misc] 
> 	Nevertheless (evolution) is false. In this newsgroup there has been  three 
> 	non-evolutionist biologist. Also, none of the evolutionists have been 
> 	proved to be biologist. 
> 
> 	So, if only those that know about things would talk, there would be no 
> 	confusion at all. And I am far more biologist than those evolutionists,
> 	no matter where I am majoring at. 

Antii appears, despite his proud boast above (some would call it arrogant), to
be a little shy of talk.origins. So, old Finnish buddy, I've taken the liberty
of crosposting this thread to t.o. so that you can display your vast learning 
to your equally qualified peers. We mere mortals will be grateful to simply
watch and coo in awe and wonder as you take on a couple of hundred other 
biologists single-handed.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:25:35 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714459606@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   the bible says that when jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after his
>> being risen, he said he'd leave the holy spirit with us to dwell in the
>> hearts of the believers to guide and direct us in our walk of life.  he
>> need not speak directly to people in laundramats or anything.  in fact, 
>> i've kinda made a deal with god that he will in no way speak to me in
>> such a literal fashion: after all the nasty experiences i've had on the
>> spiritual realm, i have grown to distrust conscious experience with spirits
>> and i've made it quite clear to god that any spiritual intervention 
>> in my life i will consider not to be from him.  it was possible to make
>> this arrangement with god because i felt his presence in me and i could
>> be certain that i didn't need any burning bushes, channelers or psychics
>> to know him, so i'd assume that if anything supernatural contacts me i'm
>> free to expell it.  so i, for one, am eagerly opposed to spiritual
>> encounters from angels/whathaveyou. 

>You are busing nailing together a logical coffin where you suddenly
>find yourself inside. You made a pact with an outside force not to
>listen to spiritual advice, and assumed that the first contact was
>done by the 'good' guys. Read any book about Gnosticism to understand
>the danger you are living in just now.

  you seem to have completely misunderstood what i was saying.  the contacts
i've had spiritually in the past are not of god and i'm saying i don't
want conscious contact with spirits, so if i do get spirits invading my
life, i'll assume they're not from god.  i understand the gnostic
perspective of this danger and i find it [and most gnostic wisdom]
absurd.  i value my personal experience with god to be more authentic
than gnostic garbage.

>As for pure evidence of Godlike qualities, this happened *frequently*
>during the Biblical times, people actually assumed that prophets 
>and God's sons should do miracles, and that God should speak from
>a burning bush or a cloud now and then. This is missing from our
>current world. Christianity desperately needs similar miracles,
>otherwise the religion is doomed to disappear due to the more
>secular view modern people have.

  no christianity *needs* no such miracles.  me and millions of people
convert to christianity without them.
From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:14:44 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1992Aug26.021658.29016@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> 
> If I read the koran without any commentary helps, I would conclude
> the many "we" statements[meaning god]were strong evidence for the
> trinity, just as the plural use in genesis:-)

     Maybe, although one might also conclude that God just likes to refer  
to Himself in a royal or majesterial sense (We, God, by the grace of God,  
King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Center of the Universe, Etc, Etc). :-)   
Basically, my suggestion to John was simply to take up the Muslim  
challenge that the Koran is God's complete and final message to humanity.  
If that's true, then the Koran should be able to stand on its own, and any  
person should be able to conclude, solely from a reading of the Koran,  
whether or not it is the message of God.

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer