HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:18:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Regardless of whether anyone of us is worthy or not, we would all know it, as
>Jesus described in the following passage:
>
>   Mat 24:4   Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.

	Like Paul.

>   Mat 24:5   For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,  '
>      and will deceive many.

	Like Paul.

>   ...
>   Mat 24:23   At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
>      or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

	Like Paul did.

>   Mat 24:24   For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform
>      great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were
>      possible.

	Paul Again.

>   Mat 24:25   See, I have told you ahead of time.

	And You didn't listen.  Still Haven't

>   Mat 24:26   "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do
>      not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

	Or, maybe, "There he was, on the road..."

>   Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in
>      the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

	And did ANYONE besides Saul of Tarsus see him when Saul said he did?
	I don't think only one man can manage to see a GOD, and everyone else
	just happen to not notice lightning in the east.

>   Mat 24:28   Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

	Yeah.  Saul was a christian persecutor.  Then there was a carcass.
	Who knows how much in collected tithes he managed to make.

>   Mat 24:29   "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be
>      darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from
>      the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

	Looks to me, the distress is not over.

>   Mat 24:30   "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the
>      sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son
>      of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

	Lets see, I think the number was 144,000?  I know there are a lot of xtians
who claim that that is just symbolism, but what if that's all there really are?
	How many people are Christians without being paulites?
	Hmmm...


					Dodger
					Sean Cannon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:28:58 GMT

In article <68149@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep14.161647.7312@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

> >I did it myself.  I'm God.  Didn't you know that?  If you don't agree, I
> >extend to you the same challenge as last year: prove I'm not.
> 
> Make the pencil on my office table write your name on the yellow pad
> on top of my printer.  The pad is blank and the pencil is sharp and has 
> an eraser, in case you make a mistake.  You are claiming to be an all
> powerful god, aren't you?

This is interesting Richard. What you're saying is that gods can prove
themselves to people by fulfilling requests like the one you state above.
Well, I just asked your God to make my mouse levitate for a few seconds,
but the bastard hasn't done it. Does this mean Yahweh is no more a God
than Jim Meritt? ;->

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15821 sci.skeptic:16047
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:23:26 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:

>There is only ONE true number: ONE.  All other numbers derive from it.
>Therefore, you should join the:
>Neoplatonic Church of the ONE and only INEFFABLE ONE

Careful...or you'll end up a Christian...;-)  Never know where Neoplatonism
will lead you!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Santa Clara, is jus lyke Compton! I thought you knew!
	<Btz7GL.1AL@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <ksand-040992192855@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:59:23 GMT

K<Even looking at complex mathematics that nearly all mathematicians
K<world view agree upon as universal rules, where's the universal
K<religion?
 
M<There's six little letters that are missing here, you get it on occasion at
M<parties, seems like I outta start the esplaining. We are all a product of the 
M<Big Bang, but I still can't believe I missed out on that party. So if you're
M<down with this throw your hands up high and when you do it do it well, you're
M<now down with a discount. Who's down with p-h-y? ... And s-i-c? Damn skippy
M<I'm wit it!

In article <ksand-040992192855@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Bizarre, brain overload? Anyway, so far *none* has shown me that
>there's a universal religion based on Christianity. As long as you
>are not able to give me this piece of evidence, my statement that
>Christianity is not a universal religion is valid. 
>It's really simple, Paul.

Well K-K-K-K-K-(fish called wonda)Ken, allow me to make it even simpler. Whose 
definition of Christianity are you using? Makes a big difference, don'tcha 
think? What makes you think there is not a universal religion based on the 
meaning of a rock? Isn't it all in the eyes of the beholder? Oh, by the way, 
the real answer to your question is Rastafarianism. You know, Jah Jah? I don't 
care who the guy is, I know my right. Everyone says their burden is the 
heaviest, who feels it knows it most. You can talk about the chacha and talk 
about the momba, but when you're talking rocking steady, jah betta be ready. 
Rock stead easy, steady rock easy. Now, do I make myself perfectly clear?
'eaven is right 'ere on the eart', if you know what life is really wort'. Now
get up, stan' up, stand up for your right, [in the morning] don't give up the 
fight.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:46:44 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Anyway, in Finnish naming a person kusi-paa does *not mean* 
>he's stubborn (itsepainen is the word for stubborn), instead it's a
>slap-in-the-face grave attack.

	It doesn't mean stupid, because I think you are quite smart. It means
	stubbornity to the border of foolishness. Kusip{{ is a bit more than 
	just a bimbo. 

>If you consider such rude language to evoke logical empathy 
>from my side, sorry, does not compute. Instead it clearly
>shows your intellectual side.

	You started. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:20:17 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

The verse that Richard Pitts quotes:

>   2 Cor 4:4   The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so
>      that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
>      is the image of God.

sounds dangerously like, "If you don't believe the same things we
believe, then you're obviously deluded."

Can the Bible offer any better proof of its truth than statements like this?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Brainwashing
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:20:16 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray) writes:
>: 
>: 
>:    Does anyone have any info/evidence about brainwashing tactics being used
>: by cults/revivalist preachers/churches? I have recently come across reports of
>: such things, and indeed have encountered such sinister methods- I would be
>: very grateful to receive any information at all about such things; I am particularly interested in the methods uses in brainwashing , neuro-linguistics 
>: especially. If anyone has any such info I'd much appreciate it if they could
>: mail it to me.
>: 
>: My address is: <murraysd@dcs.gla.ac.uk>

>Could you define brainwashing for us?  Isn't any form of 
>indoctrination "brainwashing"?

 By brainwashing I meant the practice of putting ideas into people's heads 
without convincing those people 'normally' or even without them knowing about
it; I gather this is what these cults get up to. I guess my idea of the difference between ordinary rhetoric and brainwashing is whether or not you can avoid
being converted to the indoctrinators' point of view- from a lot of the stuff
people have sent to me, I gather that the practices of cults/revivalists
are so powerful that they  can get you in *one* session EVEN IF YOU KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. 
          (I should point out that this is just the impression I get from 
what I've read and I don't have any real evidence).

 Neuro linguistics seems to be a means of self-advancement rather than
a brainwashing technique, but I gather a form of it is used in brainwashing.
The only way to avoid being brainwashed by a cult is to stay as far away
as possible from them, as far as I can gather.

                         


     Thanks to everyone who replied to my post.

        Stephen D Murray
  
>-- 
>Jeff Young

>Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:35:15 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <d3rns4n.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
<
<How is a Christian to know when the Second Coming has happened, then?
<This sounds very Monty Pythonesque -- "Only the true Messiah denies
<his divinity!"  ;)
<
<Seriously, though -- if someone is so obviously Jesus in his second
<incarnation that everyone believes in him, then that person isn't
<Jesus, according to these passages you quoted.  But if Jesus doesn't
<look like Jesus, how can anyone believe that he is who he is?

You're confused.  There is no "second incarnation."  Jesus returns to earth
in power and glory at the end of the age.  He resurrects the dead,
transforms the living, judges the nations, and institutes the eternal state.

His second coming will be an undeniable event.  That was the point of Jesus's
words of warning in Matthew 24.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:21:58 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.716569269@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>I hope you understand why I'm asking the question, though.
Yep...I do...I don't ascribe it to malice in any way...

>The reason I ask is because making a world whose rules require a Jesus to
>forgive sin has several notable _dis_advantages.
Perhaps...but I don't see it this way.

>If God had made a world where he could just wave his divine hands to forgive
>sin, there would be an important difference between that world and one where
>he restricted himself so he had to send Jesus: to be saved in the latter world,
>you have to believe something, and to be saved in the former, you don't.
That is EXACTLY the point.  You have to believe...at least that is the
orthodox position.  The one thing that you can do is trust God and believe
in Him.  By doing this simple thing, then you gain salvation.  That's it.
Of course, you don't see it as simple.

>I, and many people, simply am incapable of believing certain things which
>don't make sense to me.  I just _can't_ believe; and I can't force myself to
>believe.  There is no way I can get sins forgiven under the Jesus version of
>the world, only under the other one; God's decision to make a world where he
>has to send Jesus, has the end result that a lot of people go to Hell because
>of their lack of capacity for belief, something completely beyond their 
>control.
At this moment in time, and in your present state, you cannot believe.
That does not imply that you will NEVER believe...And as for going to hell,
it isn't for me to say if that's the end result if you live a good life
even though you are an unbeliever...I suspect that quite a few Christians
will be surprised at just who does and who doesn't make it into heaven...

>There are also lots of secondary consequences.  If you don't have to believe to
>be saved, there's no need for proselytization, or religious wars, or crusades.
>There would be no religious intolerance.  This would be a big change.
All well and good.  But while the need to be saved does produce
proselytizing, neither the need nor the proselytizing requires any of the
negatives you've listed...

Jesus taught that the message was by the word, not by the sword...and you
will find quite a few tolerant Christians...you're talking to one now...

 -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
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Krishna
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:58:34 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep7.022405.9334@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> 
> It all depends on how you define God. I don't believe in an omnipotent
> God that created reality. Rather I would say that reality has many of
> the attributes assigned to God, so I think it is valid to say that
> reality is God. Because reality has produced sentient life which is
> part of reality, reality (or the universe) is itself self aware.
> I believe evolution will continue to build larger "entities" just as
> animals where created out of cells, once the world is connected by
> high speed networks, the networks linking billions of minds will themselves
> become a mind, and so on.
> 

I find your line of thinking very interesting. It has raised several
questions which I would like you to shed some light on. 

1. What is unreal(ity) ? Is it possible to define/make meaningful
   statements about reality without the concept of unreality ?

2. What is self awareness ? 

3. Does the statement "Because reality has produced ... self aware."
   imply that had there been no sentient life, reality or God will
   not be self aware ? Does reality's ability to be aware of itself
   depend upon that of sentient beings which are part of the reality ?
   Aren't you saying that a "collective mind" cannot be self aware
   if some of the individual minds that make the collective are not ?

Let me explain the source of my questions. Advaita philosophy (a part
of Hinduism) has a conclusion similar to yours - reality is God. The
main difference is that what you call reality is unreality or illusion 
(maya) for advaita philosophers. I said main difference because the
conclusion in Advaita is that God alone is real, rather than reality
is God (It is a matter of object and attribute). Besides, in advaita
philosophy, God's awareness of itself is not contingent upon that
of other sentient beings (which God may have created).

> 
> -- 
> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>     

RKP
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:48:32 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> 	I'm only scared of one thing in t.o : Speculative, scientific talk. I 
>> 	can do it myself, too, but I HATE it so much I don't want to talk like
>> 	that. 

>  Is this why you never answer a question?

	That IS the reason. It depends, if you ask a sophistic, speculative 
	question ("Do you still beat your wife ?", answer yes or no) I don't
	care to answer. It is like if you would oppose Socialist economies, I
	would ask you to point the page and paragraph in "Das Kapital" that 
	would explain what is wrong in Marxist theory. Totally irrelevant.
	(This was just an example, I don't oppose Socialist Economy). See the
	point ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.210403.12322@asl.dl.nec.com> english@ssdslc38.asl.dl.nec.com (Kim English) writes:
>
>   I, for one, don't understand where you get this interpretation, #3.
>Where in the Bible (please cite book, chapter, and verse, if
>its not too much trouble)? 

It is in 1 John 1:1-2.

	"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which
	 we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our
	 hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of
	 Life.  The Life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it,
	 and we proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was with the
	 Father and has appeared to us."
	                                              - 1 John 1:1-2

In this passage, John clearly identified the Eternal Life as a Person,
who is Christ Himself, the Eternal Word.  Furthermore,  in John 1:4,
he told us that this Life is the light, and in 1 John 1:7, we were told
that we can walk in this light.

>   Are you saying that there is "heaven" on earth right now for
>Christians, those who are living this "Life"?

Yes, Kim, this is what Paul said in Ephesians 2:6.

	"And God raised us up with Christ and SEATED us with him in
	 the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus."
	                                              - Ephesians 2:6

In Christ,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:36:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <exukjb.148.716247839@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) wrote:
> The problem of God's inability to sin does not pose any insupperable 
> difficulty about his omnipotence, but may pose an ethical one. Consider
> a being, G1, who can sin but due to his perpetual rectitude chooses not to; 
> and another being, G2, who just cannot sin, period.  Which being is 
> more worthy of worship?  Which is morally superior? 

OK, if we measure what we could say the worthiness of worshipping,
then a superior entity that is capable of anything, including sinning,
has a smaller value than a minor entity that is not capable of 
sinning. So why don't we worship the worms of the Earth then? They
are not capable of sinning, because they don't have the necessary
brain power?

Cheers,
Kent
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Note to John Muehlhausen
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:17:17 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



John - there's a few good posts on here that should help you out.
Check out Paul Harvey's post "Re: Faith vs. Reason." Also one 
called  "CALL OF THE QURAN..." 

I'd LOVE to see you get into a public debate with an educated Muslim.
Don't let me down! :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:18:04 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
: 
:   it is seriously incorrect to say that christianity implies self-
: realization in the way much of the newage does.  i do not wish, as a
: christian, to live from my self-sufficient, personally-empowered
: store of omniscience.  i wish to know god, not to be god.  newage self-
: realization has nothing to do with an absolute creator/redeemer.

No wonder the Bible doesn't comdemn slavery as one of the greatest
evils in the history of civilization.  It appears to be a necessary
condition for salvation.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:48:29 GMT

In article <adams.716399712@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>An explanation of this (and I don't remember which theologian came up with
>it) is that God is omnipotent, but also limited. ;-)  Here's how is works:
>Before God creates, He has absolute omnipotence to create exactly as he
>pleases.  Once He has created, he is self-limited by the rules He has made.
>In other words, once God constructs the Universe, He limits Himself to
>follow the rules He Himself has established.

So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
should ever want to forgive sin?
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Conservation of bogosity
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:38:15 GMT

> From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
> Subject: Conservation of bogosity?
> Date: 14 Sep 92 20:11:16 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Sep12.194815.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes in part:
> |> "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
> 
> Is bogosity conserved?  

No

> Does the total bogosity of the universe always increase?  

Yes, this is a trivial consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

> Can bogosity be converted from potential bogosity to kinetic bogosity 

Certainly. Consider writing a grant proposal or thesis.

> and vice versa?

Subject to thermodynamic constraints. Consider the death of a politician.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16036 alt.atheism:16965