HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:50:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.165223.16945@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, on 14 Aug 92 16:52:23 GMT,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

>
>In article <19920813225048ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>That's about the easiest question I've been asked this month. Because
>>Jesus clearly says that none is good but God alone. Since Jesus is
>>rebuking the man for calling him good, it is obvious that his reason
>>for doing so is that he does not want to arrogate to himself an
>>adjective that he believes should only be applied to God. Couldn't
>>be any simpler than that.
>
>But, to see a rebuke in Jesus' words is an interpretation based on your
>personal thoughts on the matter.  The same goes for those who see a claim
>to divinity here.
>
>The question Jesus asks is simple.  The interpretation (both views) is FAR
>from simple.
>
Let's test this out. Suppose you come up to me and say, "Oh, Father
of Our Country,...", and I reply, "Why do you call me Father of Our
Country? Nobody but George Washington is the Father of Our Country."

Do you seriously contend that I have not by my language excluded the
possibility that I am George Washington?

>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
    ====Jack====
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Philippians 2:6 and the Deity of Christ  (Re: Morphe: ...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:46:24 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Aug14.003712.24805@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>
>'Phusis' Publius, what does 'phusis' mean? It means 'essential
>nature'. Now if Paul had used 'phusis' there would be no doubt
>as to what he meant.

But had Paul used 'phusis' instead of 'morphe', Phil 2:6-7
would have implied that Christ emptied out His divine 'phusis'
(essential nature) in Incarnation, which is not the case.
Christ had His divine 'phusis' intact even in Incarnation.
What was involved in Incarnation is His 'morphe', which changed
from that of God to that of a servant.  Precisely because He
took the 'morphe' of a servant during His earthly journey, He
did not claim His divine prerogative until after His Resurrection,
when He accepted the worship from Thomas (John 20:28).

	"Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God"
	                                     - John 20:28

>The fact that 'morphe' is used to describe both the heavenly form
>and the earthly 'form of a slave' which Jesus took on Earth is certainly
>an indication that we are meant to see a stark contrast i.e.
>heavenly vs earthly.

But the contrast is not really heavenly vs. earthly per se.  It is
master vs. slave.  Angelic beings were never considered 'masters' in
any sense in Hebrew theology.  The only one that can be used in this
antithesis is 'the posessor of heavens and earth'.

> ... The contrast between heavenly being and earthly
>being is the point here, angels are heavenly beings and CAN be used
>as an antithesis of a slave. In fact, the antithesis is very effective. 

The contrast is between master and slave, and in this respect angels
are no different from human beings, for both have the same Master.
Thus, angels can not be used as an antithesis of a slave.

>  ... If you look
>at Foerster's article again you will find that this word's root-verb
>is quite easily and clearly translated as 'to seize as plunder, to
>take in war'. It requires a lot of twisting to make it mean 'something
>which has been taken and then later utilised' ...

Foerster's article in Kittel's TDNT clearly explains why he rejects
that rendering you prefer, based on the consideration of grammar.
He also explains with all alternatives considered, he has no choice
but to render it as 'something which has been taken and then later
utilized'.  Yes, both Foerster and Behm are Christians.  But, can you
label their scholarly arguments as "twistings" simply because they
are Christians?

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Organization: Stanford U
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224339.16515@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>I wonder how we would feel if we knew that in a couple of thousand years
>people would dig up our bones, rob our graves, and put the artifacts in
>the museums.  If this did turn out to be same Caiaphas, I wonder if the
>Kohens of the world will protest that their relatives grave is being
>dug up.
>
>Link Hudson.

I donno, Link.  It all depends upon how you look at the dead.  See the
subject "Survey" for more.  Personally, I could not care less since I
think that dead is dead.  Period.

I mean, who's really going to get upset over a petrified McDonald's 
milkshake cup or a Saab?

Of course, I think resurrection is possible.  But, that's another story.

From your viewpoint, how do you think people feel about knowing
somebody might be actually breathing a molecule or an electron that
actually was a part of their body when it was cremated in a funeral
pyre or a thermonuclear reaction?

That's not to say that some people don't think burial sites are
"holy."  Some people think trees are sacred.  Others feel images or
icons have some exaulted status worthy of protection and honor.

Egypt mainly relies on tourism.  Seems to me that kind of sets the
pattern about "holy" burial sites and what they mean to modern
societies.  Look at how many turned out to view King Tut!

C
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:38:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <lharris.2@upei.ca>, lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) writes:

Hi Lora!  Didn't know you hung around USENET!

>>"had to"?  You mean an omnipotent being was incapable of creating free
>>will without evil?
> 
>      Yes, had to.  No amount of omnipotence allows a being to create a 
> logical impossibility.  

a) This strikes me as a limit on Omnipotence.
b) If you assume that YHVH created everything, then he must have also created
logic, otherwise there is something other than YHVH that is non-created.
c) Your statement implies that YHVH must abide by certain rules.  If He didn't
lay them down, Who did?  Why don't we worship that one instead?  If the rules
of logic are eternal and uncreated why should we not worship them?

> For instance, the old saw about "can god create 
> something so heavy that he can't lift it?"  The answer is no.  If there is 
> no limit to the ability to lift, then nothing can be created that is beyond 
> that non-existant limit.

A Catholic theologian friend of mine said that God could in fact create
something so heavy he couldn't lift it, because he is Omnipotent.  He went on
to point out that God could then lift it, thereby performing a miracle.
 
>      However, the reason I said "mostly" is like this -
>           1. God is perfect good
>           2. What He creates must therefore be the greatest good
>           3. Beings who follow good of their free will have more goodness 
> 		than automatons          
> Therefore, God must have created this universe with beings with free 
> will.     

Your third postulate is good-sounding, but only because we are free-willed
beings.  An automaton might well argue that it's inability to do evil make's it
more good.
 
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.)
Subject: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Organization: Stanford U
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:34:10 GMT

Did anyone catch the story on NPR today about the discovery of the
bones of Ca'iaphas? (See John 18:13,14)  Facsinating archeological
facts have come to light.  

C

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:41:00 GMT

In article <geWkbQ600WBM05jF5M@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>the water.  Verse 27 may indicate a miscarriage (rot literally meands
                      ^^^

See that? MAY? I'm sure it MIGHT! I just want to be convinced that it
DOES before I go around believing it.
                      
>I am sure anyone really interested could probably have had this passage
>translated from Hebrew by now.  The protracted argument that this
>passage is not descibing an abortion merely shows us the intellectual
>dishonesty of a few people.  
No, actually, I couldn't have. I know about 25 people on the West Coast
and to my knowledge NONE of them know Hebrew well enough to translate
this accurately. That's why I'm trying not to decide on an interpretation.

Pray tell, dear boy, who accuses me of intellectual dishonesty, what
possible interest could I have in wanting this passage not to be
about an abortion?
-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:44:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713176701@sfu.ca>,
> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes...

>>>(Todd C. Gleason)
>>>My soul, if I have one, is in no jeopardy, let me assure you.  I don't
>>>practice murder or adultery or promiscuity or any other of a hundred of its
>>>supposed abominations.

>>(Stephan Buckley)
>>  well, that's a good start, but what keeps you from going all the way
>>and recognizing jesus as the way, the truth and the life and the only way to
>>go.

>First, Todd questions the existence of the soul.  Second, Christianity is 
>ONE way, certainly not the ONLY way.  There are many religions followed on 
>this earth.  Sorry if anyone thinks that this is a waste of bandwidth, but 
>this "you can't have eternal life and go to heaven if you don't accept
>jesus as your way to get there" attitude is, to many, arrogant and 
>offensive.  It does not portray the religion I was raised in well at all.

  all, then, that is happening here is i'm saying the bible says jesus
is the only way, you're disagreeing with it and we're agreeing to disagree.
if it feels like i'm offending you i'm sorry, but that's not my intention.
on the same token your believing jesus isn't the only way does not offend 
me.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Summary: Follow me and be free!
Organization: Non-Dogmatic Students of Dogma University (and poodle parlor!)
	<1992Aug18.111632.12735@phillip.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:17:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.111632.12735@phillip.edu.au> 
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
> Very interesting concept, but hardly a reality!

Seems real to me. Which version of J/C/I do you use?

>You could try following the law but the Bible does say that we all have fallen
>short of the Glory of God, and that the law cannot save us. We are justified 
>by faith.

Save us? From what? You've been hanging around the free gift sellers again? 
Need I remind you that your Lord delivered you FROM slavery, you are FREE! And
yet, why do you cling to the broken shackles?

>  Paul, on a more serious note, you could at least try to be more constructive
>in your critisism of Christianity and not make cheap jabs. I detect in most of
>your posts a hostility towards Christians and God. Maybe you have had a bad
>experience with a church or a Christian, but don't throw the baby out with
>the bath water. Sure, many bad things have been done in Jesus' name but that
>doesn't mean He wanted them to happen. They were committed by misguided or
>blatantly dishonest men who have used "religion" as an excuse to do their own
>will.

Exactly, that's why I say, why throw out the baby or even the bath water. I
use all versions of J/C/I as I see fit, kind of a best of all worlds. Have
you tried the latest version of Islam yet? It's a real cpu and memory hog,
but it does work wonders. Just remember, God is real unless declared integer.

>                 I will be praying for you!

Oh please. Concentrate on yourself. Pray if you must, but use your brain and
follow your heart. Don't try to blame things on someone else. I assure you
that you too are FREE! Any restrictions are of your own doing.

>                                               []
>                                            [][][][]
>                                               []
>                                               []
>                                               []   2Chron 7:14

Hmm, another one of those icons, eh? You need the Islam Idolaters option
I can tell, but do you have enough cpu and memory to handle it?

Dogma Test: Luke 14:26

My dog is always barking, does he remind you of Toto?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Cain's & Abel's Wives [was: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently]
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00459-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:00:28 GMT




To say that there was a group of people other than those from Adam and Eve is 
simply un-Biblical. At that time, there were no other people to mate with so 
the wives had to have been "relatives." Also, remember the age of the people back
then, they lived for several hundreds of years therefore a fairly large 
population would have built up.


Chris
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Aug22.205722.16626@u.washington.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes...
>Fact:  Smoking causes cancer.
>Societal Rule: Cigarette comercials banned from TV, smoking prohibited
>               in many public places,  and considered bad by many people.
>Law of Physics:  Classical mechanics.
>Moral Value:  The materialistic view of the world, and all its consequences
>              for our view of humankind's place in the world.

Your logic is backwards.  Science discovers that smoking causes cancer.  So
we apply previously established moral principles to create an appropriate 
public policy.  But the fact of "smoking causes cancer" has no influence on
our moral principles.  Whether smoking causes cancer or not has no bearing
on how we should treat one another or the moral principles we should
organise society upon.

Aside:  "Classical mechanics" is not a law of physics.  It is an entire 
body of laws.  I doubt whether any of them are closely relatied to the
mechanism by which smoking cuases cancer.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:48:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.145907.12728@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
}In article <1992Aug14.213410.13111@leland.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.) writes:
}> Did anyone catch the story on NPR today about the discovery of the
}> bones of Ca'iaphas? (See John 18:13,14)  Facsinating archeological
}> facts have come to light.  
}> 
}> C
}
}  Yes, I saw a story in a Melbourne newspaper. All they found was Caiaphas'
}family grave. They don't actually know if any of the bones are of the high 
}priest but it is still an exciting historical find!!

Interesting, yes.  Don't leave out the minor detail that the Jerusalem
archeologist doesn't think they are at a "high priest" site, since the
site does not support the sociological status.  Any idea how common the
name was?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:46:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

sobarr@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) writes:
>
>	ok che, what ever your name was, i got your post confused
>with someone elses.  maybe i should put it this way.  micro
>evolution is on the cellular level, macro evolution is on the
>population level.  depending on how you denote species, one could
>say that the microevolution aspect is dealing with genotype, and the
>macro with phenotype.  I realize that this is not exactly true, but
>it might help others out.  again i urge anyone who dosen't know the
>diffrence to look at a population genetics book, and a "regular"
>genetics book.
>
>steve

Reference:
Futuyma, Douglas J., _Evolutionary_Biology_, 2nd ed., Sinauer, Sunderland,
Mass., 1986.

Macroevolution: A vague term for the evolution of great phnotypic changes,
usually great enough to allocate the changed lineage and its descendants to
a distinct genus or higher taxon.  [Evolution above the species level.}

Microevolution: A vague term for slight evolutionary changes within a
species.

[Both from the glossary, p. 553]

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:58:57 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>1) Henotheism is the worship of one god while admitting the existance of
>others.
>2) Christians admit the existance of Satan and other beings that possess
>qualities generally accepted as god-like.
>3) Therefore Christians are henotheists.
>Henotheism != Monotheism.

  generally accepted is pretty squishy.  god is the creator [among other
things], which is a characteristic shared by no other spiritual entity.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Evidence of God d'jour
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:55:28 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug21.160456.19906@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
}The details of Catholicism show only MAN's fickleness in his interpretation of
}God's Word.  God's Word is permanent and non-changing. Man changes his
}interpretation of the Word (wrongfully) to achieve humanistic desires.  

Sure, that's what you are saying NOW.  But how about tomorrow?

;-)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Keywords: What's going on here?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:06:12 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>Paul Harvey writes:
>One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
>find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
>authentic individual living an authentic life.

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>  and the way of self-worship because there is nothing certainly-knowable
>greater than yourself [like God(tm)] to judge whether you've got god or not.  
>at this level when you are in control of god's definition, you control god,
>thus you are god.

>---
>What? I think you've taken some kind of grand leap of faith. Are you saying you
>control god and are god? And what's this "self-worship" stuff? Where did you
>get that from? I assure you that the way of the individual has absolutely
>nothing to do with delusions of grandeur or "self-worship". Where did you
>pick up that propaganda?

  i'm saying that i *don't* control god and i'm not god.  but if left
up to me to decide whatever i feel is right, there is nothing stopping
me from defining anything as god.  thus i am in control of god's definition.
there needs to be something beyond me to justify my experience of god or
there is nothing stopping me from thinking god could have any characteristics.
this last sentence is why i stopped believing 'each and every one coming to
find one's own one true god'.  the self-worship stuff comes from not having
anything objective beyond one's own definition of god.  if there is no higher
authority beyond a person to determine whether it's god or not, then there
is nothing higher than the person.  and while people may not be worshipping
themselves, they often are not worshipping anything higher than them that
is discernable beyond how they wish to conceive of god.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:17:06 GMT

In article <adams.713716004@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>And, not to change the subject,
>>but if Adam and Eve were truly the mother and father of the entire race,
>>then who did Cain marry?  In 4:17, after god banishes him, Cain goes off
>>and gets married.  Who did he marry?  His sister?
>
>Yes, the usual answer to the question is that he married one of his
>sisters, and that Adam & Eve had other children prior to this, they just
>aren't mentioned.  Ahem.

Actually, in the church where I learned my Bible lessons, we were taught
that God created other people after banashing Adam and Eve from the garden.

It's just as legitimate to claim unmentioned created people as it is to claim
unmentioned children, and it erases the need for Cain to practice incest --
which tends to upset most religious scholars.

Another explanation is that Cain married a sister and it wasn't a sin
because God didn't make it a sin until there were enough people that
marrying close relatives wasn't necessary any more.

My favorite explanation, though, and the one that I believe is that the
Creation story is a myth, and that Adam and Eve and Able and Cain weren't
real people -- they never really existed.

Religious fundies REALLY don't like that explanation, though.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of people
waiting to abuse me.
			--Bill Murray, "Ghostbusters"