HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 18 Nov 1992 22:07:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




Anthony Rose responded, when I quoted John chapter 17:11,20,21&23 to show 
that Jesus said that his deciples can be one with him and with his Father 
the same way as he is one with the Father. My basic point was that Jesus
resolved the Trinity issue himself, in his prayer to his Father. 

Here are the passages I quoted (I added verse 23):

John 17:11
---------- 
"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in  the world, and I come to 
thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, 
that they may be one, as we are"
 
John 17:20-21
=============
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on 
me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, 
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may 
believe that thou hast sent me."

John 17:23
---------- 
"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and the 
world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast 
loved me."

Anthony Rose responded as follows:

>You obviously are not very well learned in the area of Greek.  In the
>Kione Greek language, in which the NT is written, there are several
>different meanings for the word, "one".  However, in the English
>language, we have to use the same word.  The word "one" does mean the
>same thing is all instances of the Scritures.  Better get a Lexicon and
>and interlineal and check it out for yourself.  This argument cannot be
>supported in the Greek.

I asked him to "enlighten" us, but he never did. 

As I promised, here is why the issue he raised is a red herring, even so,
he did say some things which is in fact true, but not the way he think so.

He Was Correct With the Following
=================================
1. I am not well learned in Greek.
2. The Greek word used for "one" in John chapter 17 may indeed 
   do not mean, "one and the same".

He was Wrong With the Following
===============================
1. From his arguement Anthony made, one would assume that Jesus used a
   different Greek word for "one" when he said in John 10:30, "I and the 
   Father are one" (of course, he didn't say it in Greek!).

   Surprise! The same word for "one" in Greek is used both in John 
   chapter 17 and in John 10:30. 

So, What Does, and Doesn't, These Mean
======================================
1. Jesus never said that he and the Father are "one and the same".
2. Jesus *did* say that his disciples can be "one" (whatever that 
   means in Greek) with each other, with him and with God the Father,
   the same way as he is "one" with the Father. And this is the issue 
   I raised against the Orthodox Christian teaching of the Trinity.


With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:51:07 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov21182422@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:

>     You say, check out the verses about witches and rebellious sons.  Does
>this mean you support the kind of witchcraft and rebellion the Bible 
>condemns?  Here witchcraft meant consulting demons and stuff.

	Does the Bible explicitly define "witchcraft" as consulting
supposedly evil spirits? Does putting a hex on someone not count as
"witchcraft"?

	And why is the death penalty (the Biblical punishment)
supposed to be appropriate?

And rebellion
>of a son meant beating up your parents.

	Does the Bible explicityly state that _that_ is what counts as
rebellion? Is simple disobedience not rebellion?

You support these?  Nope, the Bible
>punishes the people who deserve it.

	If one talks about doing nasty things, I'd be surprised if the
Bible _didn't_ include a line or two, provided it is not done to any
of the numerous enemies described inside.

>     I know the Bible says make the best Christian example in whatever
>station in life you find yourself: slave, second-class citizen, etc.  Where
>does it say, "Slavery, racism, and violence are good"?  It doesn't.  It 
>reports these as a matter of record.

	But if it is this super-moral book, it ought to have had
_something_ in criticism of such things. But it does not, and it
sometimes has just the opposite. How are wars of conquest found by the
Israelites regarded? As a noble cause. The enslaving of captives in
wartime is nowhere criticized, either.

>     Before I blew off the Bible completely, I would check out where
>the founders of this country's government got A LOT of their laws and ideas
>about people's rights.

	The Bible NOWHERE has any concept of legal rights. Certainly
nothing of the sort to be found in the Bill of Rights. That's right.
Absolutely nothing. It does not mention anything close to
representative democracy. There are not even any councils of
aristocrats in it. There is more support for democracy in Greek,
Roman, and Germanic tradition than there is in the Bible.

	Forbidding murder and theft?

	Yawn.

	What legislator would _not_ forbid destructive (or seemingly
destructive) behavior?

>     "The bible-believers?"  "Always?"

>     I've been talking with some scientists and historians at school (non-
>Christians).  They claim true science admits it knows nothing about the
>origins of the universe.

	To paraphrase our Vice-President, that is ill-rel-e-vant. The
Big Bang is a _very_ far-off event, and if some outside entity is
responsible for it, it wouldn't be some old man with a big white beard
sitting on a throne somewhere in the sky. Personally, I think that
this claiming the Big Bang as vindication is rather extreme grasping
at straws.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:08:39 GMT

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. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21736 alt.atheism:21814 talk.philosophy.misc:2553
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: 21 Nov 1992 11:44:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>You may know it, but few 18year olds believe it in the same way as, say, a 
>38 year old (eg me).  You have to come very close to death at 
>least once, preferably several times, before you actually start to live as 
>if there is a time limit on your personal survival.  You won't even 
>understand this point until....well until you understand it really.
>A few really nasty car crashes or diseases may help you get there, or maybe 
>having a friend die in the next room at the age of 20 would do it.
>I don't think many people get really preoccupied with immortality until they 
>fully realise they will die someday.

(I'm 20)
Listen, you can say what you understand, and I can say what I understand,
but I'm not going to tell you what you understand, and I'd appreciate it
if you didn't tell me what I understand.

basically, you post is trash

>I have a book on Taoist alchemy which implies that it is possible to become 
>truly immortal, but only if you have never ejaculated.  Bit late for me.....

What does this have to do with anything?  What if the semen is formed, etc.,
but just doesn't make it all of the way out?  Does this stop immortality
too?  What about women?  Are they natural immortal, not being able to
ejaculate?  This can't be true, since I've known women that have died.

keith

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Existential Blues was What is the soul?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:00:09 GMT

In <fU2sr5r@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.044221.5541@gboro.glassboro.edu> 
>kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>>    My own answer is this: "By `soul', I mean whatever it is that makes me
>>    a unique individual.  It may or may not have independent existence.  It
>>    makes for some interesting philosophical discussions, but beyond that
>>    the question seems to me utterly pointless."

Not if we want to deal with the question of whether there is a life after
death.

>That's Existentialism.

I don't see what existentialism has to do with this, except indirectly.

> Personally, I think it's all an illusion. When a
>system is sufficiently complex such that it is beyond our complete
>understanding, then we say it exists.

Complexity has nothing to do with it.  One could be aware of nothing
but "white noise" (I picked up this idea on talk.abortion, where the
question of what a fetus experiences was the issue) and yet the mystery
would remain: how is it that we experience ANYTHING AT ALL consciously?
What is it that is conscious?  A part of one's material body?  Or an
immaterial substance?  These questions go back to the dawn of history,
perhaps to prehistory.

> "The Soul in the Machine". Perhaps
>insite can be gained by considering what is life and what is not life?
>How is life defined? There is no scientific answer to this question.

There are lots of ways to define the four-letter combination l-i-f-e.
Capitalize it and you get the name of a generally superficial magazine.

But seriously, whatever CONCEPT one wants to attach the word to, there
will be sciences that have something to say about it, at least indirectly.

>>> 2) What is the purpose of human life?
>>To worship and glorify God.

>All depends how you define worship, glorify and God, doesn't it?

Natch.  I sure hope "kilroy" has a nice broad definition of at least
one of the first two, extending well beyond the traditional dictionary
definitions.

Peter Ny.
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Homosexual Nightmare
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:58:39 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

In article <3123@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
wrote:
> 
> In article <BxtLpK.36t@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
> 
> >I do not condone changing hiring qualifications.  If I dislike what is
> >happening badly enough, I will change the school my children attend.
> >I'm not trying to change the world.  I'm just trying to get by in it as
> >best I can.
> 
> I've been following this thread for a while now, and I think I am getting
> the gist of your point.  You are saying that you don't want you children
> to have a homsexual teacher because:
> 
> There are gestures which you won't define
> 
> which may or may not be present
> 
> in homosexuals or heterosexuals
> 
> that your children might or might not pick up.
> 
> The truly frustrating thing is that throughout the length of this thread
> it has been clear that you feel you are offering a perfectly reasonable
> reason why you don't want your children to be exposed to homosexual
> teachers.

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. Why are people so afraid
to say this bluntly and truthfully? Yes it's unfashionable right now to say
so, but it is perfectly consistent with 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
morality and history. I stand on the side of the age-old standard. Let the
perverts do whatever they want to in private, but they have no right to
push their lifestyle on me or my family.

If you think this is not a legitimate concern, you should watch a little
more television. Last Sunday I turned on the tv just in time to see a news
report in which a lesbian sat with a group of 10 year old kids at some
public school telling them all about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.
Our nation has become so perverse in its thinking that the Bible is banned
from school, yet homosexuality is welcomed.

I simply refuse to tolerate such garbage, and yes, I am out to change the
world, and to protect my child from such influences. There should be a
hiring restriction against homosexuality in jobs that involve interaction
with children. At the very least, the law should explicitly forbid teachers
from discussing the homosexual lifestyle at school. 

I have nothing agaist any homosexual as a person, but I believe their
lifestyle is an abomination, and I refuse to stand idly by and watch while
they begin to teach their lifestyle to children. It's time for the rest of
us who have some standards of morality to take back our society from those
who are pushing us to accept and tolerate their immorality.

Chuck Petch
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:49:33 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov18.065250.13112@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> Incidentally, speaking of killing innocent victims, I recall 
> a Muslim student (from Bangladesh?  I forget) who lost his life in a 
> Brussels hospital September of last year (1991).  The Belgians would not
> treat his inflamed appendix for the several days of his pain and 
> suffering.  why not?  because he was not Belgian and because he was of
> low priority to their doctors.   The Belgians are predominently non-
> religious humanists (~96% from Brussels survey in Fall of 1991)

OK, if we want to continue with comparisons, the Nordic countries
are maybe the most apathic Christian countries in the world (OK,
NZ and Australia would maybe get the first place in such a competition).
Also, all these countries have something in common that the highly
religious USA does not have. And what is that? A clue, it has
to do with compassion for the common man.

It's called free social health care.


> I remained at their side, sharing their grief, listening to their woes,
> dealing with their confusion, and helping them to their feet.  That's what 
> Christ does for me.

And I applaud you for your efforts, anything that helps fellow
humans is a good deed, whether it's done by a theist or an atheist.

Still, we have the issue of why atheists don't have a high moral
standard. I think you are hinting at criminals on the streets, but
there are cases where you have Christian criminals as well. Things
are not that simple.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:55:03 GMT

In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
><EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'
>
>>The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
>>as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
>>go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
>>religion (to our present knowledge )?
>
>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.

My father, during his period of death-bed conversion before
he died, asked his priest the same question.  The answer was
"if you need an animal to make Heaven perfect for you,
then that animal will be in Heaven".  Nice answer, I thought.

Where in the Bible does it say that animals do not have souls?
For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that humans
DO have souls, and where is the nature of the soul described?


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

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:10:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.083116.9474@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>>>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!
>>>>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>>>>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.
>>>jThose are just parts of God, not his/her whole!  And it irritaites me
>>>that fundementalist really humanize God.  God ain't human, sonny....
>>>...
>>>It amazes me still that you really think you, a mere person, know
>>>all of God.....kind of trivializes God, doesn't it?
>>So?
>My point is that most of the fundie movement is composed of a group of
>people who worship a book.  A group of people who worship a humanbeing
>somewhere out there in the universe.  My contention is, that this
>isn't Christianity.....

You weren't talking about fundies, you were talking about me.  You said that
nobody can know God at all; when I disagreed, you immediately said that I'm
claiming to know everything about God.

There's a big gap between "something" and "everything".  If I start drawing
conclusions from the little bits of information you do let out about God, you
have no business telling me I shouldn't do so because I "can't know God"; why
did you then say he's good, etc. in the first place?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with MISinformation)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:07:59 GMT


     Unfortunately, there can be no adequate proofs to convince some people of
the authenticity of the Bible.  The original manuscripts were written on
perishable materials, it seems.  Thus we rely on copies.  They all don't
necessarily agree.  Some don't even stick to the original meanings and intent.
So, it's always been a struggle from the 2d century onward to know which
things written were the real truth and transmitted the "true" Christianity
of Christ.
     It might be good to note one OT Jewish test for validity of what someone
was saying.  If a statement, it matches reality; or if a prophecy, it comes to
pass.  If the manuscripts don't match these, by Biblical standards, they're
not true and not of God; because, of course, God claims to be a God of truth.
So, every Scripture that we include as such should be historical and 
accurate.  If they are, then we can trust them and they can form the basis of
The Religion.
     So, don't they match history?  Many sources say, "Naah."  But, is that 
because all the Scriptures are inherently phony to begin with, or because
the scientist/historian wasn't there to witness the events and doesn't
understand the full breadth and meaning of what the writer intended?
A big mistake is to assume all scientists and historians know what they're
talking about.  If one can't trust writings always previously thought to be
holy, how is it that modern-day "scholars" are accorded this status?  Sometimes
they deduce well; other times they can be just as biased as anyone else.
Several doctors at college (non-Christian doctors of physics, philosophy,
and history) say that academia knows nothing, really.  It's all just guesses,
since the only way to be 100% sure of any theory or idea is to witness it
taking place.
     I'm not really proving the Bible here, I just wanted to say that
modern scholarship is not inerrant.  Nor do various inventors of ideas
agree among themselves in their areas of expertise.  It's merely up to
the individual to believe whatever he wants.  This is laughable, and yet
sad.  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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:06:05 GMT

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

What's the difference between these two?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)