HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<C0I4Ft.8C6@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1993Jan8.190917.15570@ra.royalroads.ca>
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:22:26 UTC

In article <1993Jan8.190917.15570@ra.royalroads.ca> 
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>Satan was originally an angel, as you may or may not know.  He and all his 
>brethren were created to serve God unquestioningly. God, in all fairness, gave
>the angels one opportunity to choose to follow Him or not.  Satan chose to 
>rebel as did one third of all the angels. Satan and his horde were defeated 
>and cast out of Heaven. Satan will never repent and he will use any means 
>at his disposal to see that people will do likewise. Why? Satan knows that 
>we have the potential of being God's holy people and out of spite, he would 
>take that away from us.

Actually what happened was that God originally commanded the angels to
bow to no one but He. Then when God created man, he commanded the angels
to bow also to man. Satan thought he caught the old master in a paradox
and besides, he reasoned, if the angles were to bow to man that would be
disrespectful to God, that would mean that they loved God less. And so
one could say there was a schism in heaven with some angels agreeing to
bow to God and man and the others (the archangels) and Satan refusing
out of respect for God, out of their *total* devotion to God. And so,
God cast them out of heaven to the Greco/Roman Hades where their
punishment was to never lay eyes on the one they loved absolutely ever
again. Moral? Learn from dogma but please do not become dogmatic. And
watch that absolute love stuff, it's a killer. Just one more thing to
think about, that's all. Say, did I ever tell you that my dog is always
barking? But she does remind you of Toto, doesn't she?

>God loves, Satan kills.

I see. A bit of that Persian dualism eh? Say, have you read Luke14:26 by
any chance?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:08:17 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: ancho.gac.edu

In article <1993Jan5.125603.12261@prime.mdata.fi>  writes:
>In article <SCG.93Jan4191028@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>
>>>What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:
>>
>>>1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)
>>>2) Don't care about most of the commandments
>>>3) Go to church only at Christmas, if at all
>>>4) Donate little to the church, if at all
>>
>>>Have people lost the meaning of Christianity? These people could as
>>>well be atheists, as it wouldn't change their life much.
>>
>>um, i thought being a christian meant accepting jesus christ as your
>>lord and savior.  i didn't realize that it was, instead, reading the
>>bible, following the commandments, going to church every sunday, and
>>giving away 10% of your income.
>
>Well, aren't the 'rules' et al in the Bible and commandments, and going to
>church and donating to the church service to God?
[much deleted]

As I understand what you said, no.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:19:08 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <root.726423512@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>[on free will]
>>>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>>>believe in free will... ;-)
>>That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
>>least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.
>
>Yes, but Sean would also say that *everything* is an illusion, and of
>course, he would be correct, but that's easy for him to say, if you know
>what I mean. These things are all necessary tools, needed to negotiate
>this thing we call reality. Freewill, knowledge of good and bad,
>perception of you/me, etc are all required in order to live and to move
>on. One must first realize there is no God in order to realize that
>there is and one must first realize there is a God in order to realize
>that there is not. One must go down as the underman in order to rise as
>the overman in order to go down again as the underman, etc. These things
>are all cyclical and are purely illusionary, mere navigational tools.
>But the student must know the tools and know them well before moving on,
>beyond the tools, well, you know the flavor. Be seeing you, and by the
>way, I am not a number.

I must be losing my mind.  I understood an entire paragraph from on of
Paul's posts. :-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:13:01 GMT


In article <8Zi7wB1w164w@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca writes:
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> 
|> > Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear fals
|> > witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions.
|> > Do you find fault with any of these?  What is wrong about being a Christian?
|> > Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What have you g
|> > to lose?
|> > 
|> > What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?
|> > 
|> > God loves, Man kills.
|> 
|> 
|> With the exception of the first (Love God) exhortation, atheists can follow 
|> all the rest of the suggestions just fine, thank you. There's nothing 
|> inherently "Christian" about being a good person. 
|> 
Being a "good" person comes as a result of being a Christian.  That is to say,
all Christians try to be good people.  We don't always succeed because we are 
still human but it is the trying that counts.


|> We just happen to believe we can be "good" people without falling for all 
|> the rest of the mythology you Christians apparently believe (but don't 
|> appear to practise.)
|> 
Not all of those who call themselves Christians are Christian.  If a person who
claims to be a Christian but not follow Christ is obviously a liar, a false
prophet.  The Bible makes mention of these people and how prevelant they will be
towards the End Times.

Your points are valid, however.  You don't have to be a Christian to be a good
person.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Keywords: Mormon, Trinity and Subordination, Ex Nihilio
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:22:44 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17981@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.130925.3565@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
>
>>universe came into existance is not the same thing as ex nihilio
>>creation. As you should know, ex nihilio states that there was no
>>matter of any type in existance and that God created all matter from
>>nothing.
>>
>>Long ago, when I struggled through two years of Hebrew in my
>>undergraduate course of study, My very Jewish instructor pressed the
>>point that "bara," the root word translated as create (In the beginning
>>God created the Heavens and the Earth) was not ex nihilio but carried
>>the notion that God "Organized" the Heavens and the Earth from existing
>>material. Indeed you will find that notion expressed even by prominate
>>non-Mormons, for example, Young's concordance to the Bible and Young's
>>literal translation of the Bible will substitute "organized" for
>>"created."


>One of the reasons Joseph Smith liked the German Bible translated
>by Martin Luther was the rendering of the word "create" as shaped
>(I've forgotten the German word, perhaps "schafft").  I wonder
>if Martin Luther believed in "ex nihilo" creation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jfl@panix.com (Jeff Lipton)
Subject: Re: Robertson in US News
Keywords: Conservative Christianity
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:04:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.161223.5981@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Double Helix) writes:
>Did anyone else catch the letter Pat Robertson had published in
>US News and World Report?  It seems that an earlier issue had the caption
>below a picture of Robertson speaking at the Republican convention, "calling
>for a religious jihad," or something along those lines.
>
>Robertson replied that he wasn't a Muslim, and that this was an example
>of the anti-Christian bigotry in America today.
>
>As anyone who's checked out Robertson's TV show lately can tell you, however,
>Patty Boy makes no bones about being at war with the secular humanistic
>elements in society.   There's lots of military terminology, and -- of course
>-- lots of appeals for $$$, since military operations are so expensive.
>
>Where's Oswald when you need him?

	A more appropriate denoument would be for Robertson and his
devious ilk to share the fate of their scriptural precursors, Korach
et. al., and be swallowed up by the earth... Preferably during a
televised ceremony....
  - Jeff


>
>-- 
>Richard Huddleston  |  "The two most common things in the universe are
>reh@cs.umd.edu      |   hydrogen and stupidity."
>                    |                             -- Harlan Elison
>Personal Opinions   |


-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeffrey F. Lipton, M.D. (jfl@panix.com) |   (212)-982-1219 (home)          |
| 353 E. 17th, #19-E  NY, NY 10003        | "Disobedience was Man's First    |
+------------------------------------------------ Virtue" (Oscar Wilde) -----+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:20:45 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

|> >FROM:   Malcolm Lee <mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca>
|> >
|> >But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.
|> >Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
|> >knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
|> >all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  
|> >   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
|> >Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
|> >choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  
|> >    Maybe I'm being too simplistic.  I don't post too often but I am a firm
|> >believer and I just couldn't stand by silent in admidst this debate.  I don't
|> >mean to flame anyone.  After all, Jesus came into this world to save not to
|> >condemn.  And in His likeness, I would not do the same.
|> >    I welcome your response.
|> 
|> From a reader in alt.atheism:
|> 
|> ENOUGH SAID!  I CAN'T STAND TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE TRUTH LIKE THIS ANY
|> LONGER.  PLEASE, JESUS, RIP YOUR BLOOD STAINED HANDS FROM THE CROSS AND
|> TAKE ME INTO YOUR ARMS!
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------
|>            oOoo  |                                            |
|>    ______  ooo   |                                            |
|>   / XIAN \/o     | O.K. !  WHO FARTED?                        |
|>   \______/\      |                                            |
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------
|> 
|FROM:   Malcolm Lee <mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca>
|Praise the Lord!

From a reader in alt.atheism:

WHEW! I'M MUCH BETTER NOW!  I THINK IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I ATE!
GAWDDAMNED MOLDY BREAD OR SUMTHIN!

------------------------------------------------------------------
   ______        |                                               |
  / XIAN \/      | I THINK ITS TIME TO CLEAN OUT THIS AQUARIUM!  |
  \______/\x     |                                               |
            xx   |                                               |
          xxxxxxx|                                               |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:18:50 GMT

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

>brethren were created to serve God unquestioningly.  God, in all fairness,
>gave the angels one opportunity to choose to follow Him or not.  Satan chose
>to rebel as did one third of all the angels.  Satan and his horde were
>defeated and cast out of Heaven.  Satan will never repent and he will use any 
>means at his disposal to see that people will do likewise.  

"And so I (Satan) saw that God would not recognize a Will apart from its own,
and I was seized with horror, for I perceived that the final scheme of God
would destroy creation in all things, and the Cosmos would become as a
concentric mechanism whose function would be not to create anew, but rather
to freeze into perpetuity that which already was."
					-- Diabolicon 1:9


>Why?  Satan knows that we have
>the potential of being God's holy people and out of spite, he would take
>that away from us.

"For I (Satan) shall give to man a mind, and of his own Will shall he
recognize and reject the living death which God offers him.  In truth shall
he master the Universe, but he shall do so in his own name and not that
of God."
					-- Diabolicon 3:8

>God loves, Satan kills.

God enslaves, Satan frees.


-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25737 soc.culture.jewish:24900
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:00:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:
>
>Whether or not something is logical has nothing to do with whether its
>premises are universal knowledge, or even whether its premises are true.
>
Absolutely.  Bertrand Russell once proved using correct logic the
statement:  If 1+1=3 then I am the pope.  The logic is correct but the
premise is false.  His point was that from a false premise, you can prove
anything you want using correct logic.
-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islam at a Glance
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:08:00 GMT
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ

Gani:

You sidetracked my original question by quoting a long and boring article
which I didnt have quite the attention span to read thoroughly. I'll
restate it again.

>In other words, why should I limit myself to praying ONLY to Allah?
>What if I want to pray to Jesus, Yahweh, Krishna or Buddha? Why are these
>manifestations of God wrong? And why is the worship ONLY to Allah the only
>correct path to salvation?

Can you answer the above question (in one paragraph or less)? Please be
specific and please avoid giving quotes and references to texts. I'd
appreciate a summary of your knowledge.

Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islam at a Glance
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:23:12 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1811@rwja.umdnj.edu> gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal) writes:
>In other words, why should I limit myself to praying ONLY to Allah?
>What if I want to pray to Jesus, Yahweh, Krishna or Buddha?

I don't know about the first three, but praying to the Buddha is
meaningless according to the Buddha himself.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:48:54 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5113143@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <ksand-040193172623@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
> (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>   >So this is the logical statement, those who believe (A) need to do (B)
>   >in order to authenticate themselves to belong to the set of As.

>  I see that you're still going on about "logical statements" and the like,
>apparently grimly determined to learn nothing about logic. Were it not for
>your past record as an indefatigable babbler, I would think by now that
>you're putting us on.

Torkel, I don't know who you are or where you get off. However I have
been reading Kent's posts for several years now and found him to be
articulate and his arguments intelligent. Given this, your not likely
to be doing much to support _your_ integrity by using personal attacks
(as above) as a form of argument. 

I suspect that verbal violence of this nature is similar to physical
violence: the first refuge of the incompetent.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : )
Summary:  that particular gun is loaded ...
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:51:09 GMT

In article <12301@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
writes:

>                   The difference is that an assertion made by an
>atheist is more likely to match what the alt.atheism readers think
>anyway, so there'll be no reason for them to exercise their right to
>demand that it be backed up.

Umm, I hope you realize that is more or less the point of what I said?
There is no reason for them to exercise reason, so they don't?  Pshaw.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17969@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <Bzs8pv.AJz@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>>	Not really. `Creator of all things' includes *time*.
>>	The LDS Jesus didn't create time.
>
>And you have some Biblical statement that God created time?
>I think the notion that God created time flows from philosophical
>idealism and not revealed religion.
>There are LDS who think God is outside time, incidentally,
>although I don't agree with them.  
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Peter tells us that to God, "a day is a thousand years and a thousand
years is a day".  There are many implementation that God is outside of
our time.  Could it be that he created it as well?
From: pvr@doc.ic.ac.uk  (Venkat P. Reddy)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Basics of Islam
Date: 10 Jan 1993 18:54:11 GMT
Organization: Imperial College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: passion.doc.ic.ac.uk

	In article <1993Jan6.095014.8804@netcom.com>, zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes:
	In article <1993Jan5.163020.6973@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
	>I have some basic questions for our Islamic readers since I haven't seen
	>anything from them in a while.
	>
	>1)  What is the basic message of Islam?  I know Islam asserts that both Judaism
	>and Christianity have distorted the message of God as revealed in the Old
	>Testament and that prophets such as Jesus and Muhammed came to set the people
	>straight.  Is this the message or is there more?
	
	>> The most basic believe of Islam is the Oness and supremecy of God. God is omin-
	>> present and omni-powerful. He has sent us messengers and scripture to guide us.
        
	Could you please answer the following points due to omnipresence of God?

	 If He is omnipresent He can not be revealed, for revelation requires two parties.
	If He is omnipresent, then the knowledge which He imparts through the messengers should be all around
	because  He is everywhere. So, there is no need to teach to Himself. 

	 Secondly, when we pray to Him, is he He prayin to Himself, because He is also in us? 

	Thirdly, can we pray to Him, for we can not face Him since he is in everything.

	I am not asking the authenticity of a faith. But, I want to know, to what extent
	it can answer to all the questions.

	Another question which I have is , what does God do apart from sending 
	the messengers? 
	How are we taken into Heavens? Are we the physical bodies or the souls. If we are souls, what is
	the form of it? Is it physical or non-physical. If it is nonphysical, how does it function on the
	matter. What are taken into Heavens? 



	If you have answers to these questions from the point of Islam, I appreciate your attention.

	
	From the science, we learn that body changes all its molecules atleast once in 3 months time. 
	So, Especially, if God is a bodily being 
	as believed by Hindus, Chrstians,etc,   we can not  refer to the body which changes constantly to be 
	God for what is seen was not  the same  body all throughout. In this point, Islam is  stronger than
	the other faiths, for he is not claimed to be a bodily being.



Venkat
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan7.133846.9963@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:21:21 UTC

In article <1993Jan7.133846.9963@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> In article <1993Jan6.140645.9919@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>The dog has dignity. She's just waiting. 
>Dat Paul Harvey...him crazy, me tink.
>>>As private parts are we to the Gods:
>>>They play with us for their sport. 
>The prosecution rests, my Lord. :)

Better crazy than sane, if you ask me. The world is full of sane people,
haven't we learned yet? Just ask Yosarian of Catch-22. Catcha-22,
catcha-22, catcha-22, always catcha-22. I wish my brother George was
here.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc