HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Christmas
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:36:57 GMT

In article <75901@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
 
> 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?
> 
While this sentiment is certainly of the nice warm and fuzzy variety, it
seems that we really have this season at this time because so many other
beliefs celebrated the (re)birth of the sun/son at the winter solstice.
Early Christianity saw an opportunity to add to its own capital by
assimilating local customs, including the feasts, so the celebration of the
birth of the Son was instituted when everybody else was celebrating
something similar. There is no evidence that Jesus was born on December
25th, nor has there ever been. Consider also that Easter is celebrated on
the first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal
equinox--now there's a Christian formulation for you. And it's just when
the pagans will have also been celebrating the return to life to an
apparently dead world--you know, the Maypole, the Easter Bunny, and all
that fecundity stuff. I'm not sure that any of this necessarily invalidates
Christianity's internal claims, but it may provide a context for some of
them...Gene
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:13:36 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov16.182719.4513@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> >Hmmm...if they are honest, decent people, what is the need for you
> >to convert them?  I would seem that their current religion is producing
> >"good fruits"...
> 
> 	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. Neither does your current statement overrule
the fact that former terrorists are drawn to certain religious
orders. You have two issues, terrorism and religion, and if you
want to connect them somehow (something I think it naive) it 
will evidently make more connections that you asked.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Pope on Sex and Heaven, the Full Quote
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:54:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



Angelia Sparrow wrote:

>We get new bodies (ones that WORK!) that have no need of 
>anything physical: food sleep or sex.  Or so I've heard.

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????

With brotherly love,

		Frank


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fVlq0LG@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov18.045607.11737@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 1992 06:24:31 UTC

In article <1992Nov18.045607.11737@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
>from?

From the same propagandists that brought you Paulist Christianity, the
blond Jesus, the Noble Savages, White Man's burden and a few other
brilliant marketing concepts. Wake up and smell the java my good man!
The chickens will be coming home to roost!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:49:03 GMT

Peter White writes

>Let's say that your house was on fire.

Well, it obviously _isn't_ on fire...

>I could come up, bang on the door
>and with great concern for your well being, say, "Hey! Your house is burning
>get out of there quick."

..and if the loony at the door doesn't stop yelling and pounding,
I'm going to call the police. 

>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. 

I'm glad to hear that. I lead a relatively happy, successful life.
The suffering I experience isn't too terribly awful and it keeps
things interesting (How bland a life without suffering!). Do I
understand correctly that God will leave me in my present state if I
choose to ignore his call? That's all I could ask for. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:08:42 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:

> : Please choose one of the letters as your response.
> : 
> : Question 1) What is the soul?
> : 
> : A.
> : B.
> : C.
> 
> D. None of the above.
> 
> : 
> : Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
> : 
> : A.
> : B.
> : C.
> 
> D. All of the above.
> 
> : 
> : End of test.
> 
> I wonder what kind of grade I will get this time?

Grade: 0% (test was self-grading, but you had to read the instructions to
find that out. Maybe the next one will be for illiterates. After all, we
have to make it look like everyone has spiritual intelligence!)

Sincerely,
Kalki "Your brain is not the boss" 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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:41:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab24.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov17.162130.680@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
|> >Let's stop all this beating around the bush. I completely agree with Mark
|> >Morrell, in that I do not want my child taught by a homosexual teacher
|> >either, and I am not afraid to say exactly why.
|> >I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
|> >indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted.
|> I see. I have repeatedly and consistently had sex outside of marriage.
|> Moreover, I have had sex with another man's wife. Yahweh disapproves
|> of this at least as strongly as he does of homosexuals. Should I be
|> forbidden to teach in public schools?
|> 

Let's not forget the really perverted lifestyle of all those people who do
work on the sabbath.  The Bible says clearly that anyone who work on the
sabbath (or even lights a fire indoors) must be put to death. (Exodus 35:1-3)
That's the same penalty as perscribed in Leviticus for the sin which is
customarily interpreted to be "homosexual acts."  I wonder who would be
left to teach in public schools if we got rid of all the people under a
sentence of death for that one?
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with MISinformation)
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:30:23 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov17130759@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>     In our effort to find the Truth, we end up believing only what we want
>to believe.
>     But, I guess we'll all find out in the end, when we die, what we
>should have believed.

I am having some trouble with the last four words here, and I daresay
they raise an interesting question about behaviour.  When I have to
make a decision, I make it on the basis of my current knowledge,
beliefs, assumptions, and so on.  If later it turns out that another
choice would have had more favourable consequences, I don't blame
myself for not having taken the most fortunate course.  I just shrug
my shoulders and say, `Bad luck' or `Well, I couldn't have known that'.

That's how I shall react, in particular, if after my death I meet one
of the heads of the various pantheons.  I won't say `It seems I should
have bought the claims of this religion'.

-- 
 `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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:26:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

>Steve Adams writes
>
>>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>
>>No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'
>
>By proclamation? This seems rather simplistic to me. I'm sure we've
>all at least heard of research that has shown that certain cetaceans
>and apes are surprisingly close to humans in their capacities for
>social and reasoning behavior and communication. Why would anyone
>suppose that free, moral behavior is an exclusively human trait? I
>tend to cast a wary eye on religion that produces pat answers to
>difficult questions.  

It has not yet been demonstrated that they are free, moral agents.  When
this is done (and I expect that it might be), then I will have to rethink
this position.

 -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: bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Revisionist History   [was: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:40:49 GMT
Organization: UB

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <Bxs8r4.3LD@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>	There is a notable differance that Ivan is overlooking. Richard's 
>>point was that the disciples gave their lives for the message of the 
>>gospel; and that if the message was false, they would have known it.
>>Richard's point is not simply that these men perished for what they
>>believed. His point is that these men were in a position to know the
>>veracity of what they said.

>The problem is that Richard's chain of logic depends upon two
>things which are highly tenuous.
>1) The "fact" that the disciples gave their lives.
>  In fact, we only really know well that Paul and Peter gave their
>  lives, and Paul was not in a position to know that Jesus had
>  not risen.

	The historical evidence (from Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, etc.) 
that has come down to us is that all of the apostles were martyred, with
the exception of John.

>2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
>that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
>but as I say, he was in no position to know. Whether or not Peter
>was in fact teaching this is at best debatable. It is even more debatable
>whether or not retracting that proposition would have saved his life.
>I suspect not. I seriously doubt that those who were involved in
>killing Peter were interested in such fine theological distinctions
>as whether or not a Jewish magician and Messianic pretender had
>been resurrected after being nailed to a tree.

	It is curious that way that Eric tries to dispose
of certain elements by not addressing them, but by summarily 
dismissing them by terming them `debatable.'

	To dismiss the fact that Peter was traveling and preaching
the gospel, Eric would have to provide a reason (other than
ecclesiastical) for Peter to be in Rome; a reason for Peter's
arrest during the Neronian pogroms; a reason for Peter's execution
taking place with other Christians.

>  
>>	This is were the notable differance comes in. People do not 
>>throw their lives away for a lie, when the know that it is a lie.
>Perhaps, perhaps not. Didn't Joseph Smith die a rather violent death?

	Joseph Smith was not murdered for his testimony. He was 
assassinated by a mob. His intention was not to through his life away;
in fact he was shooting back to defend himself against the mob.


===============================================================================
bob weiss				              bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:06:01 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <41353@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>In article <e3Cq02lx2bpm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>>
>>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.
>
>Hi Tony,
>
>Perhaps you could post the definition from the Greek dictionary so
>we could all make up our minds what it means instead of you
>"forcing" your own belief onto the definition?
>
>I've never heard more ludicrous logic than when I hear people try to
>explain the nature of the God head.  Tony, if you have a room with
>*ONLY* a length but without a height or width, guess what?  You do
>not have a room that any three dimensional being could see or enter
>into and rest for the night!  The same goes for no length or width
>or for no length or height.  The correct conclusion for your
>"example" would be that together they are one room, apart neither
>of them is by itself a room.

Of course, you didn't read what I said.  I didn't say that one WAS the
room without the others.  I said that one, completely FILLS the room by
itself.  The width of a room, fills the whole room.  That was my point.

>>The issue of the Trinity is not simple to understand.  However, Scripture
>>makes it really clear to us that there is ONLY ONE GOD, and then it calls
>>the Father God, The Son God, and The Holy Spirit God.  We are forced to
>>the conclusion of the Trinity.  I grant it that it is not easy to
>
>The Bible only forces us to conclude as you say, the Father, Son,
>and Holy Spirit are one God and yet each individually is God.  This
>does not force us to the conclusion of the trinity as expressed by
>the majority of protestants and the roman catholics.  The key is
>understanding what is meant by "one God", and I have yet to see
>evidence that the greek means what you say it does.  If 'one' in the
>passage of discussion really means one in unity, then it goes to
>support what Frank has said.  A football team can be 'one in unity'
>but yet each player is his own individual self.
>
>Robert  

I admit, as I did before, that this issue of the Trinity is one that is
hard for our infinite minds to comprehend.  However, when the Bible tells
us that there is only ONE God, and beside Him there is NO OTHER, and there
will be none formed before or after, Him, that that rules out any
possiblity of "The Father having a body of flesh and bones as tangeble as
mans, the Son also....."  (D&C 130:22).  Because that would be two Gods!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:27:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.184426.2067@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <WIGGINS.92Nov17122722@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.001359.21834@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>   In article <1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>   Do you have a real argument to propose?


Just for the record, I didn't write the above question.

>>   Whether Peter wrote "1 Peter" is in itself debatable.

It's debatable that Jack London wrote call of the wild.  I think you will
find that many anti-christ scholars of new Testament literature would 
agree that Peter probably wrote I Peter, and certainly that Paul wrote most of
the material attributed to him.  This document has undergone great scrutiny
as other documents have, and if, for example, if you look at lists in
Eusebius, you will see that it was not even among the debatable books
because of the surity people had of its authorship.  you can dismiss any
document in history by labeling it as debatable if you want too, I suppose.

Link Hudson.




>You're begging the question. It only follows that Peter believed what
>1 Peter says if it is shown that Peter wrote 1 Peter. Since this
>has not been shown, I do not need to show that 1 Peter does not
>indicate a belief in resurrection to show that it does not logically
>follow from 1 Peter that Peter believed in resurrection.
>
>-Ekr
>
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Proofs of the Bible
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:04:36 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In the interest of not not wasting too much bandwidth, I'll be posting
a mass answer to the responses I've gotten on my proofs of the Bible
post, hopefully tomorrow.

-Jeff
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:22:46 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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:
>>> >Hmmm...if they are honest, decent people, what is the need for you
>>> >to convert them?  I would seem that their current religion is producing
>>> >"good fruits"...
>>> 
>>> 	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. Neither does your current statement overrule
>>the fact that former terrorists are drawn to certain religious
>>orders. You have two issues, terrorism and religion, and if you
>>want to connect them somehow (something I think it naive) it 
>>will evidently make more connections that you asked.
>
>	I was an atheist. 

I thought you were a Lutheran Terrorist...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:15:14 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
wrote:
> How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
> save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.

Then believe in atheism as well as a valid form of religion. However
in this case it's futile, because correct me if I'm wrong but atheism
does not believe in an afterlife and heaven.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 15 Nov 92 11:13:38 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <92317.134508RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>[The validity of the analogy between Jesus and Jonah], of course,
>would be suicidal for christianity
>to accept since that would mean that Jesus indeed did not die on the
>cross. (Note also that gospel writers themselves disagree as to whether
>Jesus really promised a sign or not.) He was alive all along, so the
>whole myth of sacrifice is nonsense.

For that matter, the whole myth of sacrifice is nonsense even if he
died but then came back to life (as Christians would have you believe),
because sacrifice implies a permanent substantial loss.  Jesus didn't
give up anything substantial that he didn't know he would regain in
two days, therefore he didn't make a sacrifice.  Ditto for his dad.

>There are many lesser candidates on this earth who
>for a much smaller prize (e.g., for his country or belief) would volunteer
>for death by crucifixion, firing squad, hanging (you simply name it)
>with all smiles, no complaints.

Oh boy.  Country or belief?  Why, I would volunteer for temporary
death (that is, such that I am alive again after two days) for a few
hundred pounds (assuming that my time does have a value), never mind
eternal life, Godhood and the like.

-- 
 `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