HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:16:16 GMT
Organization: UB

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>In article <74415@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>Trust is given by the fact that these men gave their lives for the
>>message - that Jesus the Christ came from God and humbled himself in
>>the form of a man, lived and taught God in love, was killed for this
>>message, was buried, ROSE FROM THE GRAVE on the third day, and
>>ascended into heaven.  [...]  These men suffered greatly for the
>>Message of Jesus. They gave their lives - if this wasn't true, why 
>>would those who were eye witness have done such?

>Okay, here are a few points for you, and anyone who thinks with you:

>(1) There is a chapter in 1 Kings where a prophet of your god (Elijah,
>I think) slaughters a huge number of prophets of Baal.  It appears
>indisputable that the prophets of Baal gave their lives for the
>message of Baal -- the message that Baal is the one and only Lord (as
>indeed his name suggests) of the universe, and the only deity which
>must be worshipped.  If this weren't true, why would they have done
>such -- they wouldn't have died for a lie, would they?

[...]

	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.

	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.


===============================================================================
bob weiss				              bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:19:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <74954@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |This raises the question of the apostles, were there only 12 or were there in fact
> |24 but 12 were female and therefore because of the sexist view at that time they
> |weren't mentioned.
> 
> Women are mentioned throughout the NT as being actively involved.  In Acts 2-3,
> we see that the men and the women (approximately 120 of them) were together
> praying in the upper room, while they waited for the Holy Spirit to come.
> 
> Jesus first appeared to women.  There was a gang of women that followed Jesus.
> Paul spoke to groups of women often and women are often mentioned in Paul's
> closing - the women had churches in their houses.

C'mon Richard, both you and I know of what Paul thought about women
as leaders of the Church. Don't try to paint a pretty picture over
the real views Paul had about women (including marriage that was 
a necessary evil for the flesh).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus not a prophet, Son of God
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:53:50 -0600

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov17002849@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>  writes:
>In-reply-to: d89-gsk@nada.kth.se's message of Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:43:45 GMT
>...
>Jesus Himself said, in the NT:
>"And no man has ascended into heaven, except he that came down from heaven,
>even the Son of man who is in heaven."  (John 3:13)

This says to me that EVERYONE is IN heaven presently. Some KNOW it and some don't.

>...
>"And, after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and 
>behold, the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a
>dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying,
>'This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.'"  (Matthew 3:16-17)

In TLTOC (below), Jesus is very angry at Matthew for describing his baptism
thusly.

>...
>     Jesus claimed equality with God.  You cannot say He was a prophet, when He
>clearly claims to be MORE.  You must call him a liar or agree.  If you agree,
>...

A prophet can be equal to God.. How do you think he knows what to say?
(I am not being very strict with the word "prophet." I think a more 
appropriate term would be something like "mystical teacher.")

>for the Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel);
>Jesus the Messiah, Isa al-Masih, said,
>"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am."
>(John 8:58)

What was your face before you were born?!
This is a well known "koan" in Zen. This is _not_ proof of somebody sitting
on a throne in heaven etc.. etc..

Read _The Last Temptation of Christ_ and _The Gnostic Gospels_.
The first is excellent, the 2nd passable.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:57:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ksand-151192201606@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>wrote:
>> 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.

I'll skip the obvious response about the meaning of "believing in
atheism" and move to the real point: Just as being an atheist is
incompatible with having following a religion, many religions are
incompatible with one another.  Therefore you don't necessarily
maximise your chances by following several of them simultaneously.
Maybe each of the gods you worship will damn you for _also_ having
worshipped the other one(s), and you'll end up in hell.

>However in this case it's futile, because correct me if I'm wrong but
>atheism does not believe in an afterlife and heaven.

Atheism doesn't believe in anything, and specifically is not very well
compatible with belief in afterlife and heaven.  But as a mental
exercise it is interesting to imagine a deity which favours those and
only those who don't believe in it, or in any other deities.

-- 
 `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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Women in the Church (was Re: Who wrote the bible?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:03:52 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <ksand-161192171951@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <74954@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
: |This raises the question of the apostles, were there only 12 or were there in fact
: |24 but 12 were female and therefore because of the sexist view at that time they
: |weren't mentioned.
: 
: Women are mentioned throughout the NT as being actively involved.  In Acts 2-3,
: we see that the men and the women (approximately 120 of them) were together
: praying in the upper room, while they waited for the Holy Spirit to come.
: 
: Jesus first appeared to women.  There was a gang of women that followed Jesus.
: Paul spoke to groups of women often and women are often mentioned in Paul's
: closing - the women had churches in their houses.

>C'mon Richard, both you and I know of what Paul thought about women
>as leaders of the Church. Don't try to paint a pretty picture over
>the real views Paul had about women (including marriage that was 
>a necessary evil for the flesh).

	Either Paul, or someone else passing himself off as Paul,
stated that women should shut up about religion, should learn instead
of teach, and should let their husbands instruct them.

	In this week's _Time_ magazine, there is a cover story called
"God and Women" about the ordination of clergywomen in some churches.
The Vatican is rather annoyed by the Anglican Church's decision to let
women be priests, since it is unbending on its men-only line. In the
article, the stated reason was that all the 12 apostles were men. This
is probably in addition to their reason that Jesus Christ was a man,
and that a priest should be JC-like (though a Catholic priest doesn't
have to be a 30-year-old Middle Eastern Jew conceived by artificial
insemination, apparently).
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: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:24:17 GMT

In article <30462@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?
>Let's say that your house was 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."
>Or I could stand out on the street and yell, "Nyahh, nyahh your house
>is burning, I hope you burn up with it because I don't care a fig for you."

If this analogy is intended to mean something, it seems to say that for God
to "call out" for us to obey would be like me calling out to someone to leave
a burning building, and for God to "demand that we obey" would be like me
sitting around and doing nothing.  To demand something and to sit around and
do nothing do not seem very similar to me.
--
"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)
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:44:39 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721875575@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca
(Michael Jenkinson) writes:
|>Then God would be going directly against his word:
|>
|>"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that
|>whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting
|>life." John 3:16.
|>
|>Michael
|>
|>In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
|>
|>>that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
|>>flat out lying?
|>
|>If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
|>right now.

This is the attitude that scares me the most...

|>
|>Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
|>him with anything...specifically his comment about Satan being "the
|>father of lies.

HIS comment?  Both that and John 3:16 were spoken by, written by,
and translated by MORTALS (humans).  Being "God-inspired" is a
matter of opinion. (I am assuming that you, also being perfect,
have the correct opinion :^} )

|>
|>Come on....God is incapable of lying. It completely goes against his
|>perfect nature.
|>
|>Michael
                
Perfect nature?  Is being ego-centric perfect?  Killing children
for the 'sins' of their parents?  Killing a man for gathering sticks
on the wrong day of the week?  You have a twisted sense of perfection.

(I would give up on this one, Eric.  Dead end.)

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Christmas
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:42:01 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

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?

I think the old pagans would love to hear modern men celebrating
the Winter solstice as the birth date of Christ. Anyway, c'mon
have fun during the break!

Cheers,
Kent
..who is actually working the whole Christmas break...
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:51:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.135003.20295@medtron.medtronic.com>  
ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
> Just about anything can be "explained" by adding stuff to make things
> more complicated, but you have to careful here because if you allow
> yourself to add things here, you allow others to add to other places.

	I would go even further and call into question anyone's intentions  
who participates in the practice of creating ad-hoc theories.  More so if  
the discussion is about the potential (or lack of) unity and inerrancy of  
a particular work.  It strikes me as extremely ironic that the person who  
is tossing about possibilities as if brainstorming for a fourth-rate  
murder mystery is trying to advocate looking at the Bible as the Word of  
Truth.
	Such a person is at best niave, at worst intentionally  
hypocritical, and most likely the sort of person that Jesus would  
castigate as "Satan", similarly to Matthew 16:23.  It is somewhat  
distressing to note that many of the theists on t.r.m. seem to care little  
about truth, and prefer instead to wallow in shallow dogmatic  
interpretation and filtering of Biblical mythology.  Such intense  
concentration on the details of spiritual illustrations and dramatizations  
causes myself, at least, to wonder if they have Completely Missed The  
Point.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockdale: O.K., I thought this was just an open session, this five-
minute thing, and I didn't have anything to add to his, but I will--
Gore: Well, I'll jump in if--if you don't want it.
Quayle: I thought anyone could jump in whenever they wanted to.
Moderator: O.K., whatever pleases you gentlemen is fine with me,
you're the candidates.
Quayle: But I want Admiral Stockdale's time!
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 23 Nov 1992 23:06:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




>>1. Yes, human beings are composed of two parts, body and spirit
>>2. No, our spirit is not God, its is ours (where did you get the idea that
>>   our spirit is God??????)
>>With brotherly love, 		Frank

>OK, OK, I'm just trying to figure out your conception of the meaning of
>Jesus. Now, it seems to me that this is what you are saying:
>
>Item#1: Human Being
>	Part 1: Human Body
>	Part 2: Human Spirit
>	At Human death, the Human Body dies but the Human Spirit lives
>	and does something, what?

Waits for the day of resurrection in the spirit world. After the resurrection 
it all depends on the judgement what we will do.

>
>Item#2: Jesus
>	Part 1: Human Body
>	Part 2: God Spirit
>	At Jesus death, the Human Body dies but the God Spirit lives and
>	does something, what?

Was resurrected, and presides over his creation.

>
>Some more questions:
>1. Jesus does not seem to be 100% human since he lacks a human spirit.

I am not sure what you mean by human spirit. May be my response to Item 3
will explan it.

>2. Is God only God Spirit or are there other parts of God?

Jesus is God and he has a resurrected physical body.

>3. What is the difference between Human Spirit and God Spirit?

What differentiates our spirit from Jesus' spirit
is the quality and attributes. Jesus possesses attributes in their perfections, 
such as, truth, love, judgement, mercy, knowledge, etc. We posses these attributes
too, to some extent, but not in their perfection. 

Man was created in the image of God. In Jesus we see God, a perfect man. We are 
here to perfect ourselfs, as Jesus commanded his disciples to do.

Matthew 5:48
============
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

It might help if I explain that I am LDS (Mormon). We do not believe in the
incomprehensible Trinity concept. We believe that God the Father, God the Son 
and God the Holy Ghost are separate personages who posses godly attributes. 
If we would see the three members of the godhead, we would see three separate
individuals.

I hope that this helped to clarify where I am coming from.

With brotherly love,

		Frank




Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:12:50 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov22.193153.23239@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> >We either have a situation where
> >a) Human beings with limited minds don't understand anything at all
> >concerning the holy trinity
> >or
> >b) the trinity concept is clearly understandable as a doctrine for
> >finite minds
> 
> Clearly this is a false dichotomy.  Among the other possibilities is,
> for example, "Human beings understand a thing or two about the
> trinity, but not everything."

Interesting, so if you state this, are you then sure which parts
human understands, and which ones not? If you include a coefficient
based on not having the full picture, you will have a hard time
justifying that the current set of belief statements are truly
valid.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21217 alt.atheism:21358
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.164411.7165@newstand.syr.edu>,
dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
|>If the Bible or whatever religious text was supposed to be
|>interpreted differently from what the words literally sa wouldn't
|>the author(s) have included that vital fact in the book?
   
No.  
1) They were writting in a style that was appropriate for
the period.  Anyone from that time should be able to understand 
the authors' meanings.
2) Allegories, satire, and parables rely on the intelligence of
the reader to convey meaning.  "Gulliver's Travels" didn't have
footnotes saying "OK, these guys represent the Tories".

Brian /-|-\ (who would think that _I_ would defend the Bible!?! ;^)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus not a prophet, Son of God
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov17.175351.2378@gacvx2.gac.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 07:15:36 UTC

In article <1992Nov17.175351.2378@gacvx2.gac.edu> 
emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>This says to me that EVERYONE is IN heaven presently. 
>Some KNOW it and some don't.

Exactly. We are not separated from the Kingdom by time nor space. The
Kingdom of God is right here, right now only most don't *see* it. Hell
is not *seeing* it. I say preacher mon don't tell me heaven is not on
the Earth, I know you don't know, what life is really worth. You say all
that glitters is gold, half the story have never been told. And now
we've seen the light, we're going to stand up for our right!

>What was your face before you were born?!

Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like me.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Re: Worldwide Church of God mailing list.
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:59:33 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>Could you tell us about some of the reforms that have taken place
>in WCoG, since Herbert W. Armstrong passed away.

g'day :)

[HWA was the Pastor General of WCoG until he passed away in Jan '86]
All the Church's doctrines are (& always were) under constant review;
external input is always welcome.
	I've only been a member since '88, so I can't tell u everything,
but basically we've tried to focus more on the "trunk-of-the-tree" issues
(love, mercy, putting God first, etc. etc.) whereas before we tended to
get caught up with the branches - which are still important, but in
perspective, of course. There is also more emphasis placed on the
responsibility of the individual Christian rather than having the Church
maintain strict specifics. (eg. A man should not have long hair vs a man
should have hair length no longer than 1.2cm at the back.)
	My memory is pretty lousy, so anyone else got any details?

A Statement of Beliefs of WCoG is available free by writing to:
Worldwide Church of God
300 West Green St
Pasadena, California 91129

(PO Box 202, Burleigh Heads, Qld 4220 in Oz)
Hooroo,
Helen
--
My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.            helen@scorch.apana.org.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.084406.3627@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>You weren't talking about fundies, you were talking about me.  You said that
>>nobody can know God at all; 
>Wrong!  I said nobody can know "all of God"....Big difference, sir....

You may have _phrased_ it that way.  But I never did say I can know all of
God.  I said things that could be interpreted as based on knowing _something_
(not all) about God.

When you disagreed with me on the basis that I can't know God, you must have
been disagreeing with my ability to know something about him.  You could not
have been disagreeing with my claiming to know all of God, because I claimed
no such thing to begin with.

>A true sign of the anti-Christ movement....

Gee, what movement did you _think_ I was part of?  The _pro_-Christ movement?
--
"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)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21743 alt.atheism:21827
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:51:44 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

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.
> 
>  -Steve

How do YOU know that?  Prove it.

Sue

> --
>   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