HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:32:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <fSaUYAG@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> Just curious, I do not claim any religion, that is I claim all, if 
> that makes any sense. 

Sure.

> I have read several English versions of the Mahabharata
> as well as the KJV and JPS Bibles. Just so you know I mean no malice,
> but what do you think of the idea of Krishna similar to Christ and
> Christ similar to Krishna? Similar or no similarity, good or bad?

Most interesting.  

IMHO, what Bhagavat Gita teaches about faith is identical to that
of Christ's. But, there is a fundamental difference between Hindu 
and Christian thoughts. Hindu belief is that God (if he/she/it 
exists) *IS* everything or that "I am God". Gita describes *A*
way to realize that belief. 

Krishna does not claim that his (Karma Yoga) is the only way or
that without believing in him, one cannot attain salvation (if
I may use that word). In fact, Hindu belief is that *ALL* paths
(including that of a Christian) lead to God. 

Anyway, I see more differences between Krishna and Christ than 
similarities. Perhaps, I am blinded by my Hindu upbringing. I would 
like to hear why you think they are similar.

> Namaste.

Namaste

RKP
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:39:32 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <Sep.7.20.10.23.1992.7388@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
>>So fellow airm chair theologians, isn't this another nail in the coffin
>>concerning the issue of the holy trinity? If Jesus didn't know, only the
>>Father did. How could he be God then at the same time, and not knowing
>>about it, wonders Calvin?
> 
> No.  The Trinity does say quite you seem to think it says.  It talks
> the unity of the Father, the eternal Logos, and the Holy Spirit.
> (I've avoided the term Son, because it is used with at least three
> different meanings, so it would be confusing.)  Jesus is not simply
> identical to the eternal Logos.  Rather he is a human incarnation of
> the Logos.  As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.

Right. Like being able to raise the dead, walk on water, calm storms, etc.
I understand now. It's all so clear...:)

Besides, doesn't the Nicene creed state that Jesus is of the same
substance as the Father?  

And...if he was "subject to the normal human limitations" (presumably
including limited knowledge) why should we believe his claims? I know
this is a bit circular, but I think that's because your claim is a bit
off....

This is something I've always wondered about, actually (the Trinity). 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith." -- Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:59:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <2537@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> 
> In article <Bu74t6.7KH@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John D. Hays) writes:
> >When looking for His return, please consider the following words of Christ:
> >
> >                        Matthew 24:30-31,36
> 
> Why did you leave out verse 34?
> 
>   Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
>   things be fulfilled.  (Matt 24:34)

Anyone reading the bible, and not thinking about this position
statement is blinded by the faith. 

We have two positions concerning the 'This generation' definition:

a. This generation means the generation Jesus spoke to, the
more obvious interpretation. Matt 24:34 clearly then shows
that Jesus was a really bad futurist.

b. This generation implies every generation that listens 
to the message of Jesus, all the way from 2000 years ago till
today and tomorrow. This is not logical. It implies that all
the things he describes are fulfilled for each generation
(visions, earthquakes and so on). My father's generation didn't
experience them, id. est this statement is false.

Anyway, using one's brain is a very useful thing to do.

Cheers,
Kent


"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:50:14 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <1992Sep5.154610.17229@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>, davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
>  
> There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
> Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
> during September in 1994.


Wanna bet?  Here's the wager:  On October 1, 1994, you will
completely liquidate your every asset and mail me a check for
the proceeds.  Since you're convinced 10/1/94 will never arrive,
you've got nothing to worry about.

Here's my part of the wager:  If the end comes in September of
1994, as you predict, I will devote my entire fortune and my
every resource toward the aid and comfort of any of your
relatives or loved ones who are left behind in the Tribulation
period.  (Or you, too, if you happen to miss the Rapture.)  This
is my solemn pledge to you (send me a list of relatives and loved
ones) and I know I can expect your check by 10/15/94.  I further
trust that you won't blow your entire fortune by then.

How about it?  Are you willing to back your convictions with
action?  Will you put your money where your mouth is, or is it
all just a bunch of hot air? 

You may send a contract if you wish, but I'll settle for your
word.


>  
>     Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
>     856 Grenon Avenue
>     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>     K2B 6G3


Don Bowden
Educational Counseling Center
800 E. Dimond Blvd.
Anchorage, AK  99515
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: What is 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:50:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.065441.20632@engage.pko.dec.com>, pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

> As Scofield stated, the Kingdom of the Heavens refers to the rule of
> the heavens ON EARTH.  It is an earthly sphere where God's rule is
> acknowledged.  To enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens means to
> have God as your Lord in your life.  It means to repent the way of
> life that is separated from God.  It means to live a life that is
> filled with Christ, and have Him as the sphere in which we live, move,
> and have our beings.  It has nothing to do with "after you die, you will
> go to Heaven".

It's very true that first century jews like Yeshua were talking about the 
direct rule of Yahweh on earth when they used the expression which we find
in greek as 'basilias ton theou' (kingship of God) and not about some far
away place. (The writer of Matthew used the euphamism 'Kingdom of *Heaven*' 
since, as a good jew, he didn't like using the word 'God' even in it's greek 
form.) However, it is clear that these jews believed (i) that the coming of
the kingdom was something which was going to come very soon and (ii) that it
was going to involve the coming of the messiah, the apocalyptic appearance
of Yahweh and the judgement of all. It was not simply a matter of repenting
and accepting God as your lord. Repenting was something you had to do to ensure
that you were a sheep rather than a goat when the Kingdom came. Yeshua believed
all this and told his followers about 'the Kingship's' imanent arrival. His
various warnings about always being ready, his emphasis on the closeness of
its coming, his assurances about how it was going to come during the lifetimes
of the generation he spoke to and his emphasis on the need for urgent repentance
before it was too late show that he was just like the other apocalyptic
jewish preachers of the time. And, like them, he was dead wrong.

(Of course, Publius will tell me that I've got it all wrong, that Yeshua wasn't
saying that at all, that his message sounds like all those other jewish
preachers but was very different etc. As far as I'm concerned, if he looks
just like a 1st century jewish preacher and smells like a 1st century jewish
preacher, then I'd say there's a good chance he *was* simply a 1st century
jewish preacher. But what would I know.)

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
(and it's feeding-time...)  
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15884 alt.atheism:16767
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:02:15 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <exukjb.130.715979691@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Third, and finally, IMHO: the 
>environmental scare has its source in some very high places in this, and in 
>other, countries, and seems to me to be little more than an attempt to get 
>industrialized nations to fork over more tax money to the IMF and World Bank 
>to finance the building of infrastructures in third-world countries, mostly 
>to the benefit of the large international financial centers. The formula is: 
>Tax the poor in rich countries and give it to the rich in poor countries. 

Do you get paid to spew this garbage, or do you actually believe that
the environment is really in great condition?

>The environmental wackos and the collectivists should consider just how much 
>they depend on the rich capitalists whom they despise.

Apparently, "environmental wackos" == people who would prefer that there
is a planet left for their children.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A RIDDLE FOR YOU :-)
Date: 7 Sep 1992 04:38:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: THERE ARE NO KEYWORDS!

In article <1992Sep6.224840.25163@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

>This is just a little fun for everyone, especially those who would call me
>a non-thinker.  I suppose I don't take as much time as I should in the
>response to some of your posts, and therefore you catch me in seemingly
>contradictory statements, but I do spend a rather lengthy ammount of time
>thinking of things that are fun, and challenge the mind in that fashion.

>	MY CENTER IS NOTHING;
>	MY FIRST IS MY LAST;
>	AND WHEN THE LONG AGES 
>	   ARE OVER AND PAST;
>	THEN VENGEANCE DIVINE SHALL
>	   DEVOUR ME AND MINE.

This is trivial. The answer is a photon in a closed state universe.

>Good luck everyone who gives this a try.  I hope it will be a welcome
>break from the monotony of the arguments that go on here.  It may also
>encourage some of you to read a part of the bible you haven't read, and
>that will be the best thing.

I don't know what the bible has to do with it. I'd suggest a good
physics text instead.

>God bless all,
>Steve.Gross
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Interfaith marriage: Christianity/Judaism
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00558-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:48:11 GMT




Have you tried asking your question in soc.religion.christian??

Maybe someone over there can help you out???

Chris
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:23:33 GMT

max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:

>In article <adams.716310076@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>><MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>I notice no one ever asks where good came from. What's this nonsense
>>>supposed to mean? "oh, I imported my personal evils from New Zealand."
>>>(It's a joke guys, so take it that way) It would appear that we made
>>Ok.  Fine.  Where does good come from?  Is there really any such thing as
>>good or evil???  If so, where did they come from?

>I dunno. Where is the source of all things purple? Of all foods I like?
>Just because you can name a category implies neither a sink nor a source.

I can explain the physics of light, if you wish.  But the 'food I like' is
based on a notion of 'good' taste...;-)

Just what exactly is 'good'...and where do we get the notion from?

 -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: yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:23:50 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu


From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Nothing wrong with selfishness, but I think that there is some benefit
in taking a longer term more enlightened approach to it.  Overpopulation
may not affect you today (I think it does) but you ought to be a little
worried about what it might do to you tommorrow.


Me:
Do you honestly think the U.S. has to worry about overpopulation?  The only
problem is 3rd world environmental damage.  Plus, like I said, that damage is
nothing compared to the damage done by the U.S. to the environment.


Jon Newton
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15783 sci.skeptic:16022
From: conjon@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:36:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com>, entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
> I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!
> 
> Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
> must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!
> 
> The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
> whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
> and on the internet. The number 4 was saddened to see that the
> world has reverted to eating BEANS, and belief in false numbers!
> 
> With the divine guidance of 4 I am starting the Pythagorean Reform
> church to spread the Gospel far and wide. With the guidance of 4
> I hope we can soon bring the message to the world over the PBN
> (Pythagorean Broadcasting Network).

	We demand a SINE!!!! And don't throw us any TANGENTS or false theorems.
We have been SECANT the truth for a long time. :)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Re: SPIRTUAL HEALING
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:17:07 GMT

In article <13367.156.uupcb@cccbbs.UUCP>, daniel.campbell@cccbbs.UUCP (Daniel Campbell)  writes:
 > Is there such a thing as Spirtual Healing? Wheres it come from? Where
 > can one harnas it?
 >                                        

Yeah, and pigs have wings.  Sorry guys, just feeling really skeptical today.

Leif the .sigless
Yeah, yeah, standard disclaimer.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally) [A.Johnson thread]
Date: 7 Sep 92 03:00:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep6.194140.18212@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> Surely!  Whatever turns your crank man... In fact I would say that my
> understanding of God is more one of complete awe and reverence than the "pal"
> you don't seem to find appealing.  God can (and does) present Himself in many
> ways...  There are times that I think about the vastness of creation and the
> immensity of !!!GOD!!! and I start crying at the thought of Him caring about
> _me_.  Only such a perfectly immense God could have such a perfect love that
> he would care about me enough to sacrifice His Son for my salvation.  The
> implications of that act blow me away.

I must state once again, that if I had a neighbor that killed his son
in order to justify something abstract, I would call 911. Sorry, our
societies don't allow such barbaric actions, whether we call it
family values or not.

Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 05:40:10 GMT

In article <ednclark.715996273@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
(Jeffrey Clark) writes:
|>dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
|>>>
|>>That's your belief. Ask me such a question. At least one, please.
|>
|>Jarek, you are one of the few christians (and don't tell me you know lot's,
|>as these are probably people you associate with you know birds of a feather)
|>who are willing to think for more than a couple of seconds about the general
|>God exists subject. What most of us atheists are concerned about is the
|>other 95% who beleive that they can buy their house in heaven, that
|>non-beleivers are loathable beings, that war (and therefore murder) is fine
|>as God is on their side, that knocking on people's doors at 6:30 am on 
|>Saturday morning to justify their faith is reasonable, who limit the rights
|>of women because the bible was written for men etc etc. I'm not saying that
|>atheists are all ideal people (far from it) I'm saying that a Christian is
|>more likely to be unthinking. You I'm afraid am an exception.
|>
|>Jeff.
|>
|>
|>>Best wishes,
|>>             Jarek
|>>======================================================
|>> .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
|>> `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
                        
95% ?!?  Wow!   Seems a bit high to me.  I think that it is more like 5%, but
it seems like 95% because ignorance is loud.  Most people (Christians,
Atheists,
Hindus, et al) are reasonable.  They live a sane and normal life, either
keeping
their views to themselves or just saying "who knows?".
Jarek is NOT in the minority for his positions, just his posting of such.
The rest are small, but DAMN are they annoying! : )

Brian /-|-\
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16138 alt.atheism:17122
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:57:25 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
 <72235@apple.Apple.COM><adams.716140467@spssig>
 <1992Sep10.195518.1571@adobe.com><adams.716184466@spssig>
 <92255.141649MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <adams.716310076@spssig>

In article <adams.716310076@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>
>Ok.  Fine.  Where does good come from?  Is there really any such thing as
>good or evil???  If so, where did they come from?

Might be. I think of what's good or bad for me...but I don't personify
them. To me, they're just words which don't come from anywhere. Just
terms I use since they're familiar to most.

>>I'm not going to bother going into the idea that your god's evil based
>>on that he created evil, I'm sure someone else has or will. Besides, who
>>told you that it was man who "actualized" it? The bible? (snicker) God
>>himself? IS there a little bias there? Perhaps your god is lying to you
>>and making the actualization bit up so he doesn't look bad?...
>
>Hmm.  'Snickering' at the Bible isn't new, and obviously you haven't paid
>much attention to other things I've written on that subject...

Oh, "obviously," or I'd be...a born-again christian? Well, you either
didn't get the joke, or you have a vested interest in not liking it...

Martin Schulte
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:35:30 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <Bu74t6.7KH@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John D. Hays) writes:
>When looking for His return, please consider the following words of Christ:
>
>                        Matthew 24:30-31,36

Why did you leave out verse 34?

  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
  things be fulfilled.  (Matt 24:34)

Matthew 24 cannot be properly understood without dealing with verse 34, and
coming up with a biblical definition for the phrase "this generation." 
(Hint: Jesus just predicted the destruction of the Temple that would happen
in less than 40 years, so He wasn't telling His disciples of events 1900+
years in the future.)

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:32:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Sep.7.20.10.23.1992.7388@athos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >So fellow airm chair theologians, isn't this another nail in the coffin
> >concerning the issue of the holy trinity? If Jesus didn't know, only the
> >Father did. How could he be God then at the same time, and not knowing
> >about it, wonders Calvin?
> 
> No.  The Trinity does say quite you seem to think it says.  It talks
> the unity of the Father, the eternal Logos, and the Holy Spirit.
> (I've avoided the term Son, because it is used with at least three
> different meanings, so it would be confusing.)  Jesus is not simply
> identical to the eternal Logos.  Rather he is a human incarnation of
> the Logos.  As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.

This is the dilemma, we have a unity where the three parts don't 
provide information flow between the parts. In other words not
a unity. If this let us say instance of Logos spent time on
Earth, we can't consider Jesus to be fully part of the trinity,
because he was just a copy of the real thing. In other words
Jesus was in no way part of the trinity, he was just a copy
of the real thing.

I do think that trinity can't be really explained with notions
from the Gospels, mostly because it was an invention defined long
time after gospels were written.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism