HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:38:50 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec10.052539.7802@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>Assuming you could remain in your(or anyone)state of bliss
>without taking on this sacrifice for the humanoids, but out of love
>as the story relates the God became flesh to endure the...

That's how the story has it.  Maybe the motives were different.
The sheep may believe that their shepherd devotes his time and effort
to them out of love; in reality he wants their wool, milk and flesh,
and because of the last item he is ultimately their mortal enemy.

>IMO this would be a _big_ sacrifice.

But sacrifice of what?  Sacrifice implies permanent loss.  It implies
accepting the fact that afterwards you will have less of something
left.  I see no sacrifice whatever, not a big one, not a wee one.

>I am including the previous three
>years of endurance up to the point of the cross because those years
>must be linked as part of the sacrifice as they lead up to it.

Okay, three years it shall be.  Who cares?

>If it _were_ only a piddling three days. You would need to be born,
>go through the ususal pains of growth, then to adulthood,

Oh dear.  We're getting into the Buddhist idea that life is painful
in itself.  Life, the creation (never mind that, the gift) of a loving god.
Shall men curse the deity for having condemned them to life?

>_then_ the pain begins,

_What_ pain?

>you speak out(ouch)for three years, no one understands what you are saying,

Who is to blame, if not the one who created the audience?

>your list of enemies is growing,

List of enemies?  But those are just some inferior beings who can't do
any serious harm to you, so why should that matter?  If my list of
enemies in this life, the only one I have, were growing, I would have
a reason to worry.  But not someone who is going to live for ever.

>I think you are focusing on thr three days alone, but it didn't
>go down that way. You must include the other parts that lead up to
>those three days for it all to fit.

Again, who cares?  That's a finite period of time compared to an
infinite blissful existence.  Three days divided by eternity is
nothing.  Three years divided by eternity is nothing.  Thirty-three
years divided by eternity is nothing.

Hence the "sacrifice" of Jesus is worth nothing.

>AnD, The beings' nature changed.

Temporarily.

>It became a human, and left a human(in part)by leaving it's former glory

Former and future.  No reason for sympathy.

-- 
 `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: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/21/92   God's Promise in Psalm 49:15
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	But God will redeem my soul
	from the power of the grave:
	for he shall receive me.
	Selah.

	Psalm 49:15
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:48:46 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <1992Dec17.210058.6561@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.001353.3965@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>
>>  ... To me, the words
>>"separation from God" have a neutral connotation--maybe no pleasure,
>>but no pain either.
>
>No pain?  You should talk to some of those little children who are, for
>one reason or another, separated from their parents.  Ask them if
>they feel pain in their hearts.  Or, are you one of those who believe
>only the corporeal punishment causes pain and suffering?
>
>> ...  I exist in a state of separation from God right
>>now, and it does not pain me.
>
>Because you are having too much fun in this age.  But just wait until
>when Jesus comes back ...
>Look at those children on the play ground of a preschool.  They
>are having too much fun to even notice the absence of their parents.
>But when the day comes to a close, as some of them rejoice in the
>presence of their parents coming to pick them up, those who are still
>waiting will peek into the darkness outside and begin to wonder where
>their parents are, and some of them will probabily begin to sob ...

[deletions]

>-- Publius

 Interesting analogy. Of course, it fails since many of us have never
had a God in our lives. The children you refer to have met their parents
before. I'm not going to miss something I ne'er had. As far as I can
see, I'll have at least as much fun in the 'next life' as I have now,
which is quite a bit...
 The other failure, of course, is that most of us on this net are not
children. :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Non-Christian Religions & Sexual Morality
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:10:31 GMT


Pat Robertson:
>> [ Sodomy ] is a sexual practice that is condemned by every major religion.
>> [...]  EVERY MAJOR RELIGION, you name it, and they're opposed to sodomy.

>So then: are there any adherents of any `major religions' that wish to take
>issue with Mr Robertson's statement?

I'm aware of a buddhist precept that _monks_ abstain from sexual
impropriety (whatever that may be), but I know of no proscriptions
against specific sexual practices. If there were any, I'd personally
dismiss them as cultural injection, having little to do with buddhism
itself as I understand it. As long as sex is shared in the spirit of
love and compassion and does not become an object of attachment...

Merry Christmas, Darren and Nancy. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:45:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.135755.1714@lut.ac.uk>  writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.222128.2813@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>>A person should be of religion "x" if religion "x" seems appropriate for that person.
>>
>>People are different, after all.
>
>Tell that to the JW's knocking on your door every Sunday morning.
>And to the Christians whose book of rules tells them that everyone else
>is Hellbound and should be saved (converted to Christianity) at all costs.
>
>Alan.

They wouldn't agree with me.
Their problem is that they need to temper "faith" with "reason."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.035619.19021@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> It is ridiculous
>> for a bank manager to take a month off work in order to experience
>> what it is like to be unemployed.
>Well, I should have clarified earlier that he did most assuredly
>experience the _full_ weight of humanity on the cross. Some would
>say for _all_ who ever lived and will live. that's quite a weight.
>Then he said, follow me for my yoke is easy to bear.

It's ridiculous for a bank manager to take _two_ months off work to experience
unemployment.

Maybe he bore a weight, but it's _still_ not permanent; if it's not permanent,
it's not much of a scarifice.  And the weight is still very small compared to
a God (anything is very small compared to a God) even though it may look big
to people.

No doubt his yoke is easy to bear.  Any yoke of any kind is so minor compared
to God that it is as nothing.
--
"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)
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Weiss's "Christlike" example for the Mormons
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:52:49 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Dec18.140154.5559@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>   and non-biblical hyperbole  (ie The Angel of The Lord == God himself,

I think if you look in the Bible (OT) you will find that when the
Angel of the Lord appeared to men, then men often remarked that they
had seen or been with God.  I believe even the incident with Moses
and the burning bush relates that the Angel was there in the bush
and it says that God spoke from the bush (Exodus 3:1-6.)

>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: 12/18/92   God's Promise in Luke 1:79
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:12:53 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec19.102725.4568@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec18.142435.642@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> >Read the description in the latest _Time Magazine_ of what physically
> >happens to a person as he starves to death, then try to tell me that
> >you worship a loving god.
 
> Physical pain, and finally death, are insignificant compared to the joy of
> knowing God!  Suffering within God's will purifies the soul and communicates
> to ther world the surpassing value of the spiritual over the physical, the
> eternal over the temporal.

Well, well, well. We live here, and now. It's fun to speculate about 
afterlife, karmas, reincarnation, heavens and hell. However if people 
are dying due to lack of food, they don't feel joy and happiness. If
there's a God that does not care about this, then this God being 
does *not* own the attribute of compassion. Now, I do know there 
are religions that are not this strict about non-caring, or let 
us say there are ideas concerning a passive God-being. Looking
at the world situation today I would say that these ideas are more
valid than the concept of an active creator.

It reminds me of a software program that is out there on PD, but 
the programmer does not have the interest to fix the bugs any
longer :-).

Kent
PS: Happy holidays!
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde)
Subject: Re: Love and Peace
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:11:45 GMT

jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:

|abilities. In my life I have found associations between Love, Peace, and 
|Atheism. Smile.

so, thats subjective ... rats.....

obviously, christians (say they) find association between love , peace
and christianity. One suspects this is the major issue involved, 
mainly some brainwashing that the above quoted association is
impossible leads to the opposite association ...

leon
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:07:08 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <40Tv02i02e6A01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>Jason, the issue is not over the Trinity, and I agree with that point.
>The issue is over which God you worship.  If you have the wrong God,
>you are wrong enough to lose your soul forever.  The point is that, the

>claiming they will baptize me "for the dead" once I depart), but if the
>Christian God is true, then Mormons are doomed for eternity.  I don't
>with that for Mormons, and it is out of that love, and fear for their
>souls that I do what I do.
>

This is the problem.  I can't worship such a being who would doom
people for eternity because they have the wrong notion of what
His nature is.  This is not a loving God.  What it is that attracts
you to a wrathful God, I don't know, but it doesn't attract me,
and it didn't attract Jesus, from my reading of the Bible.







-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:37:40 GMT

Let's summarize this argument:

Tony feels that since Mormons must believe the way that _he_ says that
they should believe, then Mormons are bad people and aren't following
Christ.   Much of the discussion that follows consist of Tony trying
to persuade Mormons that he knows what they believe or that they should
believe. The net=lds keep trying to explain why they don't have to
believe the way that Tony says that they should.

Oh just for comparison's sake Tony thinks that Mormons should be beliving
in ever little part of McConkie's MD while Barry Olson thinks that Mormons
should be nailed to the wall because they don't execept everypart of
Brigham Young's JoD.  It's very frustrating because those mormons
wont't be "honest" and believe what we tell 'em their beliefs ought to be!

Why if they believed what people told 'em that Mormons believe, those
Mormons would be "baaaad  people, wouldn't they?



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:40:23 GMT


 No Tony, the issue here IS you. I've tried conversing with you in e-mail
 and you _have_ recieved my mail, you just don't respond.

 You have posted quotes from other's books and post and passed it off as
 your own. It's fairly evident when you misquote passages with the
 same errors has found in those books. Your detailed "analyis" follows
 the arguments in those books fairly closely, errors, pontifications and
 all.

 And yes Tony, I do have your posts saved. I doubt that anyone other than
 yourself is interested in hearing/seeing/suffering through your opinions
 yet again. I offered several times to do this in email, but obviously
 you are unable to do so.

 And yes, I heard from several of your mormon "friends", and sorry to say,
 I proably have a higher opinion of you than they do. Obviously, to know
 you, is _not_ to love you. You, do seem, to alienate everyone, an
 equal opportunity offender.


 I post it here, because email seems to be to difficult a concept for
 you, (it would be real easy to prove to me that you are 1) capable
 of dealing with people in a reasonable fashion, 2) that you are a honest
 gentelman 3) that Christ _has_ touched your life in any measurable way
 4) that you have interest in something other than seeing your name
 in print.

 It's just that to date, I haven't seen _anything_ that would sugest that
 any of the previous statement would have anything to do with your on-net
 persona. 

 As you have pointed out _you_ and your behavior have become the issue.
 It's the only issue that you _haven't_ dodged.

 Maybe some day, you _will_ find Christ, and then when you give your life
 to him, he _can_ make a difference in your life and attitudes. For this
 and other things, I pray.


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Atheist, speak up.
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:28:49 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec17.183252.117@cs.cornell.edu>, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu 
(Roderick Moten) writes:
> What does it mean to be a Christian?

I might be being silly, but shouldn't Christians be answering that one?
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Sol Invictus is the Reason for the Season
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:17:27 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



 
Seasonal thought for the day:

Put the "X" back in Xmas. 

-- Peace, love, understanding, in the name of Christ's Kingdom with more than
mere brotherly love, and praying for you night and day (godless sinner),
in Christ (and out),

Sean Hartigan, reporting from the Highway to Hell. We now return you
to your regularly scheduled programming. 

<...static...>
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:39:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>In article <13DEC199214543291@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>>The widespread persecution of Mormons is evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed
>>organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leads it today.
>>
>>Those who persecute Mormons do so because they are deceived by Satan.
>>
>>There are many humble followers of Christ outside the Mormon church.  They do
>>not rail against the Mormon church.  Those who do are not humble followers of
>>Christ.
>>
>>It's not real complicated.
>>

Let me get this straight.

Those who were persecuted by the Danites, for instance, were real 
followers of Christ, and those who `employed' the murdering, pillaging
gangs of Danites were deceived by Satan.

Is this right?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Bible verses for two days
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:27:17 GMT

In article <1gpsf1INN9aj@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
|>There have been several posts regarding examples? and/or fears of  
|>misinterpretation of these verses.  Although I appreciate the comments, I  
|>think they should probably focus more on the actual interpretation than  
|>possible misinterpretation.  Thanks again for the comments.
|>
|>In Christ's Love,
|>
|>Bryan
        
All interpretations are "possible misinterpretations".
The only one who knows the "actual interpretation" is
the writer, not you.

Brian /-|-\
==================================================
The Truth is still the Truth 
even if you choose to ignore it.
John 14:6
==================================================
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23824 alt.atheism:23641 alt.pagan:14258
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: God etc
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:36:18 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <uX4qVB1w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>>   I find it baffling why, from the point of view of religion, it should be
>> considered a question of importance whether or not there is a God who
>> created the world, or again, whether or not Jesus was in fact a Savior
>> of mankind. Surely all this business about the universe being created,
>> about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
>> irrelevant to what religion is about?

>    Then enlighten us, O sage, what precisely is relgion about?

I've been thinking on this question for some time, and my conclusion
is that all religions provide philosophical systems that the adherents
of the religion use to establish a relationship between themselves
and the world around them. These relationships are as varied as the
religions: some have primary focuses on social interaction, some focus
on on other systems (such as the relationship of man and nature);
some are theistic while others are athiestic.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject?

Eric
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:38:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec9.040840.27322@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>[All this assuming you were God living in the spirit(no flesh),
>and you gave that up to become flesh and dwell with the humanoids:-)]

No.  Giving it up means losing it for ever.  The god in the Christian
myth definitely didn't lose his well-being for more than 33 years,
which, when divided by eternity, yields zero.

>If you(or anyone)were living in a perfect environment and you had no
>worries, no pain, no hunger, etc. [...], would you(or anyone)give that up to
>become hungry, in pain, ridiculed, embarrassed, harrassed, and eventually
>beaten, whipped, and tortured for a bunch of humans? 

Maybe.  That would be no more surprising than my current occasional
willingness to leave the comfort of my warm home and go out in the rain.
Whenever I go hillwalking, I accept the fact that I will become hungry
and tired.  Being ridiculed by _a` priori_ inferior beings is not a
big deal.  How a god can be embarrassed or harrassed (other than by
another god) is beyond me.  What else?

>What would the act buy you(or anyone)?

Depends.  It could be many things, both noble and wicked ones.

>I don't understand the sentiment that the act was a small sacrifice.

Neither do I.  It was no sacrifice at all.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc