HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL 
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.111403.8694@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug12.042540.24510@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> > 
> >>"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
> >> Who, being in very nature God, does not consider equality
> >>	 with God something to be grasped, being made himself
> >>	 nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made
> >>	 in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man,
> >>	 he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even
> >>	 death on a cross!"
> >>	                                      - Philippians 2:5-8
> > 
> > MORPHE actually means 'form', pure and simple.
> 
> leaving aside the possibility that Paul's thought could sometimes
> be, well, muddled... are you saying that he meant: "being in very
> FORM, God..."  What does this mean? That Jesus was an angelic creature 
> of some sort before his incarnation? This doesn't seem any more
> satisfying than the interpretation you're arguing against.
> 
>    ando.

Precisely what Paul meant is unclear (dear old uncle Paul could be, as
you say, muddled)

Whether or not the idea that Jesus was an angel is 'satisfying' is 
beside the point, as far as I'm concerned. This Phil 2:6 business
came up as a result of a number of threads on whether or not Jesus
ever claimed to be God incarnate. I argued that he did not, since none 
of the earliest books of the NT (Mark, Luke, Matt, Acts and the Pauline
epistles) mention his divinity at all. We have to wait until John until
we get any indication of the development of the idea that Jesus was
divine. The authors of Mark, Acts and Luke make it clear that they 
considered Jesus to be the messiah (but fully human), while Paul (and
perhaps Matthew's gospel) seems to have believed that this messiah had 
some kind of angelic pre-existence.

Several net.christians have claimed that Phil 2:6 'proves' that Paul
*did* believe Jesus was God incarnate, and I reply that the proper
translation of 'morphe' and '(h)arpagmos' shows that (i) no clear
conclusion about Jesus' metaphysical status can be made on the basis
of this passgae and (ii) it indicates that Jesus and Yahweh were *not*
equal in Paul's eyes. 

So whether or not this is 'satisfying' is not my point. My point is a
historical one: that this passage shows that Paul did *not* have an
'orthodox' christology and that his views represent a transitional
stage in the development by which Yeshua ben Yusef, the jewish teacher
and faith-healer, became God himself.
Which makes christianity an interesting if rather odd religion.
Tim O'Neill
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <1992Aug17.051536.15052@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >Huh?  Last I checked, water (along with wind) was a major cause of erosion
> >and weathering, which causes mountains to be LOWER!  The older a mountain,
> >the more rounded and low it is.
> 
> 	Yes, but never there has been dealt with such huge amount of water, so 
> 	we don't know how it affects to plate tectonics. 

  Are you saying that the properties of water change if there is a whole lot of
it?  Keep in mind that the amount of water needed to even approach moving
something the size of India would turn even the most sturdy ark into toothpicks
in a matter of seconds.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:38:45 GMT

Tim Shelling writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  thanks for you interest.  my purpose in life has always been to know god.
>>i have always believed in god, yet until recently i was unable to feel like
>>i have any kind of relationship with him.  the bible answers what started the
>>universe, what will end it, what god's nature is, why we are here, what's
>>wrong with us, how do we get better, how we imperfect creatures can know god,
>>and how to live lives according to how he wants us to.  none of the other
>>religions or philosophies could answer all of these questions, nor could
>>they ease the spiritual malaise in my life from being empty of god.  one of
>>the most important points is that in my decade long search, i found i could
>>not reach god on my own, either through mystical experiences, psychological
>>speculation or any man-made philosphy.  god had to come to me.  jesus.
>>my purpose in life is still the same, to know god better.  

>The reason "none of the other religions or philosophies could answer all of
>these questions" is simply this: They don't *ask* those questions. 

  yeah, that's right.  the tao for instance gives no weight to beginnings or
ends, the flow in between is what counts.  

>Part of formulating a world view is knowing what questions to ask, not
>just how to answer them. Christianity is a convenient philosophy because it
>nicely asks questions that it can then demonstrate the answer to. 
>What has bothered my search is the fact that i'm fully aware of the dangers
>of believing in Christianity simply because it is more convenient to do
>so. Christianity would then be downgraded to a system of ethics based more
>on pragmatic values rather than absolute ones. It is convenient for me
>to believe in Christianity partly because i had already done so, up to 
>just 4 years ago. I suspect your situation may be similar.

  if christianity were merely convenient to believe i would have stayed
one 10 years ago.  the trick is asking the right questions.  when i wasn't
asking christian questions i never found any meaningful answers.  the way
to tell if i'm asking the right questions is if the answers make any 
difference in my life beyond hypothetical abstract philosophy.  none did
but jesus.  i left christianity ten years ago because it wasn't making a
difference in my life--it was as meaningless as my searching elsewhere became
for me.  only by returning to it did i find peace, understanding and Truth
that healed my life, not just sounded philosophically coherent.

>>---                          
>>     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?"                   
>Interesting .signature.

  interesting good or bad?  :)
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:33:07 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


   Loren, this debate has deteriorated to the point that your arguments are
nothing more than you (incorrectly) telling me what I believe and what my
church teaches, rather than giving any valid arguments against what the
Catholic Church really teaches.  I will not say why I think you are
misrepresenting these teachings of the Church, because I don't presume to
know what you are thinking, or what your motives are.

   I've already corrected your notions of what the Church teaches, so I
don't think it's necessary to do so again.  You can either accept them or
not; I would be happy for anyone who chooses to accept them, but it's no
"skin off my back" if you don't.  My only concern is that these teachings
not be misrepresented, as has been done here.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:12:40 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Sigh.... 'Missing links' (not a very accurate term, but, obviously we
>are not talking to a science student here) are evidence FOR macroevolution!

	Yes, we're talking. I know the evolution theory, for I'm a biologist !
	How could the lack of evidence be an evidence ? 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:28:46 GMT

J/C/I versions:
rev0: Judaism: There is but one God in Israel, the Lord. (But law is complex!)
rev1: Christianity: Add Jesus as His Son. (Hangup with fish mongers, cool icon)
rev2: Catholicism: Add Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary!
rev3: Fundamentalism: Jesus is all we can handle. (even runs on Zilog Z80!)
rev4: Islam: Add Mohammed and other optional prophets. (386/1G/16MEG min)

So, my question is, which is the best upgrade? Should one stick with the
fundamentals of the OT, i.e. Judaism, or go all the way for the latest
upgrade of Islam, or stay somewhere comfortable inbetween? Or should one take
the best of all of these related religions as one feel is relevent to the one?
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:23:41 GMT
	<maoh.714503853@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <maoh.714503853@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu> 
maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran) writes:
>No, No, No!   You've got your satanic co-conspirators mixed up.  The
>New Age people are the ones who believe in crystals, astrology,
>psychics, holistic medicine etc. etc. etc.  Their VERY spiritual,
>even poly-spiritual.  The amoral godless atheists are referred to as
>"secular humanists". 

Ah secular humanists. It seems like such an Evil word doesn't it? Let's
see, what does it really mean. Secular means not of the Church, the
Church usually refering to the Roman Catholic Church. I see that my
dictionary defines secularism as the belief that consideration of the
present well-being of mankind should take precedence over religious
considerations in civil affairs or public education. OK, what about
humanists? Well that one is pretty obvious, isn't it? I mean after all
we are all humans and so of course we are also humanists, aren't we? Or
do we think that humans are evil? Here is an interesting definition: A
cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized
secular concerns as a result of the study of the literature, art and
civilization of ancient Greece and Rome. Sounds like true family values
to me, after all we are all one big family aren't we? Homo sapiens
sapiens from the mother continent of Africa? Or do some people seem to
think they have some kind of higher standing, perhaps the higher
standing offered by the Christian Devil? Or maybe just the Church Lady?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13912 talk.origins:9454
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:38:30 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> 	From the facts today's science has given to us. 

>  Could you be more precise?  What facts are these that eliminate
>macroevolution?  Do you have any references to scientific journals?

	They're called missing links. Any textbook will do. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:43:05 PDT

In article <adams.713475001@spssig>, on 10 Aug 1992 19:30:01 GMT,
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.713452645@spssig>, on 10 Aug 92 13:17:25 GMT,
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>>
>>>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>>>
>>>>I'm not quite sure how this got past the censors of the early Church,
>>>>but it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus did not regard
>>>>himself as God, and actually rebuked an admirer for using language which
>>>>might suggest that.
>>>
>>>No, it would seem to me that Jesus was asking the person to consider who he
>>>was adressing.  In other words, the person had called Him 'good teacher'
>>>and Jesus said noone by God is good.  He asked WHY the man called Him good.
>>>To me, that is asking a reason of the man for the statement.
>>>
>>I have two objections to your interpretation. First, if Jesus were God,
>>he would have known the answer to the question as to why? Heck, I'm not
>>a god, and I can figure out that the man addressed him as "Good Teacher"
>>as a sign of respect. Why should this have been so difficult for Jesus
>>to figure out?
>That wasn't the point that Jesus was making.  If the man was going to call
>Him good, it had to be for the right reason.  If the man didn't know He was
>the Son of God, then he shouldn't have addressed Jesus as 'good'.
>
I would say that the point Jesus was making was that the man, in his
ignorance, used the adjective 'good' to a human being when Jesus
maintained that it should only be applicable to God. When Jesus says
that no one but God is good, he includes himself in that category.

>>Secondly, if the man could have somehow figured out that Jesus was God
>>in disguise, why didn't Jesus praise the fellow for his insight? After
>>all, Peter supposedly got the keys of the kingdom for merely intuiting
>>that Jesus was the Messiah.
>Then he should have answered Jesus that he knew that Jesus was the Son of
>God...not just a teacher, and thus due the respect of that titile.
>
It's obvious that the man would have never considered the possibility
that Jesus was God. If his disciples, who lived with him virtually
every moment of the day, themselves never came to believe that Jesus was
any more than a human being, how much less likely would a man who at
most was barely acquainted with Jesus believe that he was divine.

> -Steve 
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
>
    ====Jack====
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:46:08 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Eric Rescorla writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>Eric Rescorla writes:

>>>Mr. Buckley: You cite your Jesus spiritual experiences as evidence
>>>of the existence of Jesus, yet despite the fact that you admit
>>>that people have had non-Jesus spiritual experiences, you do not
>>>consider this to be evidence of the existence of other deities.
>>>[Christianity is not a polytheistic religion in the sense
>>>that it does not accept e.g. the existence of Vishnu].
>>>That is known as special pleading.
>>
>>  i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
>>are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
>>non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
>>but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.

>Let me get this quite clear:
>There are other nonGod spiritual entities wandering around saying
>that THEY are God??

  they all don't claim to be god.  some do.  others don't bother.  none
are god.

>But wouldn't they be taking people away from the true God and
>therefore be evil? Hence probably demons? Or are you postulating
>an entirely separate classification or nondemon, nonGod spiritual
>entitities. In this case, since these spiritual entities say that
>THEY are top God, and yours says that IT is top God, why should
>I believe yours and not theirs?

  well, since you asked, yeah they're evil and demons.  and i'm
not postulating a separate category.  basically those other spiritual
entities won't save anyone.  jesus will.  it's jesus or not jesus.
binary thinking, yeah, but the issue really is that simple.

---                          
     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?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14392 alt.atheism:15514
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:50:08 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug20.213415.16644@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>
>It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
>to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
>the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
>ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
>
>1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>
>If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
>then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
>being forgiven and not the others?
>
>If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
>atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
>in God?

1. YES \_____  That is if you accept the gift of "forgiveness of sins".
2. YES /

You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
you!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: So The bible Is NOT the word of God???
Organization: The OWLS are not what they seem!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:03:34 GMT

(Paul Harvey) writes:
... AntiChristian is the same as Christian.

(Dave Weaver) writes:
Amazing! I didn't know the law of contradiction had been suspended.
When did this happen?

(James Meritt) writes:
Genesis 1:1.

----
Yes. When the Lord began to create ... 
When you approach that Big-Bang singularity, things that you perceive as 
opposites in your time become one as time approaches zero. Ah, but what is on 
that other side of time increasing in the negative direction that the Pope
doesn't want you to think about? Could it be ... the Church Lady? And why is it
that we are all a product of the Big-Bang? That is one party I-wished-I
hadn't missed, but I-guess-I was just the twinkle in someone's eye back then.
Anyway, Moby Dick was actually a whale and I bet he was! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Jah! ... Ras Tafar-I!
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:22:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


  


In article <sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Gordon Storga writes:
>
>>Why does an omnipotent being need worship?
>
>  he doesn't need it, he deserves it.  worship is extreme gratitude
>to the creator for being created. [my definition :) other def'ns exist]

  It's interesting in how different each of us approaches their relationship
with the divine. For instance, I find that I worship as a result of an 
inswelling of gratitude and thankfulness that all of it's own caused me
to cry out "Thank You". 

  Somehow the worshipping of the divine, because it "deserves it", (for me 
anyway) takes out quite a bit of that deep inner stuff that brings one to 
that place of heart centered love of God as they reach out to the divine, 
with ALL of their heart, mind and soul, in their worship.

	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Re: You don't get it, do you? (was Laura questions)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:51:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.203743.24391@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: 
>In article <1992Aug21.093651.7836@u.washington.edu>
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes: 
>>You don't get it, do you?
>>If you think Noah, a Jew, was the common ancestor of all people,
>>European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc; that is, a family of
>>Jewish people became European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc, 
>>in about 5000 years (give or take a millenium), what can I say, 
>
>Noah wasn't a Jew.
>--

What was he then? A prototype human? Crogmanon man?
Is this meant to be a joke? It must be.
Whatever he was, the essence of argument still stands. 

Jeon

Opinions here are mine.
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Aug7.025923.2549@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
	<1992Aug8.103349.9155@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Aug13.024506.3324@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:12:52 GMT


Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:

>I can see what you mean by the symbolism pointing to the city of Rome, but
>I don't see why the symbolism can't refer to the heir of pagan Rome; that
>is, papal Rome.

In what sense can the RCC be called the "heir" of the Roman Empire?
That they both had their capitals in the city of Rome seems a specious
reason, at best.  The Roman Empire was a political entity which did
not require any particular religious foundation; the RCC is a
religious organization.  The RCC has no secular authority, and never
did except for some territories around the city itself which have now
been part of the nation of Italy for over a hundred years.

The real heirs of the Roman Empire were, first, the Byzantine Empire,
which lasted nearly a thousand years after the fall of Rome; second,
and less directly, the empire of Charlemagne; and third, and even less
directly, the Holy Roman Empire.  But the Pope is no heir in any way
to imperial Rome:  St. Peter's claims to authority derived from an
entirely different source.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc